Is science faith-based?

[Eligbak]

All humans are emotionally dependant on other humans, communal beliefs and prejudices (apart from sociopaths, but even they don't live in a void). That's why science has a system in place to counter these inevitable human qualities - it's called the rules of scientific evidence. By its very nature, it's designed to be un-human.

That's the theory, in reality of course, there are lots of cases where science is faith-based, especially in the non-exact or soft sciences like linguistics, history, anthropology, sociology, psychology... Eric Thompson arguably held back the Ancient Mayan script decipherment for 30 years with his misplaced idealism and paternalistic rebukes. We'll be rewriting, or rather re-interpreting, history until the last historian drops dead. Psychiatry and psychology probably shouldn't be called sciences at all, since they have built complex social theories on little, ambivalent medical evidence.

It's more a question of how you define science - limit it to the hard sciences it's not faith-based, although you could argue that unfinished concepts on the leading edge always have a faith-based element, as long as they still compete with other theories to describe the same phenomenon.

Or even, that every theory that supposes reasons for why things happen in the world is faith-based, because it just has to always work to be scientific. That's why it's called a theory, not a truth. Theoretically, there could be some other underlying reason why things fall down. Nobody's yet managed to prove a negative, or rarely.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

had already noted that to use faith with science is to make the fallacy of equivocaton that others here subsequently also note. Scientists follow William Kingdon's admonishment, in effect, to provisonally trust some matter as true but to revise their estimation of it as how true or not with further evidence whilst Williams James admonisthment to have faith provisionally, it seems to me, means have faith in God no matter what the evidence as you can ever find some reason to thnk so when that just means that siupernaturalists will find other false reasons.
Errantists acknowledge the problems with their scriptures but still find metaphors and His voice speaking through them.Yet, nothing remains of those scriptures-just what they read onto to them as William Kaufmann notes.
Faith doth that to people!
Supernaturalists ever will go from one false notion to another one in their faith-based beliefs.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Errantists find errant scriptures but still find meaningful metaphors in them and the voice of God when as William Kaufmann notes as reading their own notions onto them.
Faith doth that to people!

 

[Anaxes]

Science, philosophy, faith (ideology)

Might one propose some working definitions? Science is the active enterprise of hypothesis generation and testing by observation or experiment. Its main objective is discovery of fact. Philosophy is the enterprise of evaluating the implications of best current science-derived information and is ongoingly open to revision therefrom. Ideology is a set of ideas not open to revision in relation to pertinent facts.

 

[Anaxes]

Faith

P.S., "faith" as I have observed it, and as its adherents often proudly proclaim, is the principle of adherence to doctrine, period. This, for me, is the archetype of ideology.

 

[chainlink]

I tend to think that science is a lot more faith-based than many people would like to believe. Often times, it seems certain unproven assumptions are accepted by virtually everyone -- rather than being challenged. After all, what respected professionals would want the label "kook" applied to them, for arguing against widely-accepted practice, theory and principals.

Something that comes to mind:

Why do doctors cut the umbilical cord of newborn babies? Is there any empirical evidence that demonstrates that this is better in some way than allowing it to fall off naturally? And what about the risks?

Or is this just an unproven (though perhaps not unreasonable) assumption that was primarily established through tradition? Compared other "traditional" routine surgical procedures -- like infant circumcision -- debate on this topic seems to be sorely lacking.

Is there something to this, or are medical doctors just another example of 'herd mentality'?

 

[Carn]

I think its incorrect to say science isnt faith based.
As bad astronomer states, science starts with an assumption about the universe. But this assumption cannot be proven by further observation, because any conclusion from the observations relies on the assumption.

E.g. if a scientists tries to understand lightnings and through observation and deduction concludes, that lightning is caused by the build up of charge in the atmosphere and is able to derive some mathematical understanding that allows him to make predictions about when and where lightning is to be expected, this does not show, that the initial assumption about an ordered universe is correct.

It could also be possible, that the greeks were correct and lightning is thrown by Zeus upon his whims. And that just currently Zeus decided not to cast his lightning if someone angers or defies him, but only when there is sufficient thing human call electric charge and when the human invented laws of electromagnetic interaction would indicate a lightning strike to be likely. At any arbitrary point in the future Zeus might decide, that it had been enough fun too fool humans into thinking the universe is ordered and blast all scientists to ashes so that the rest of humans again learn to respect Zeus.

But still all the philosophers and theologians, with their imaginative thinking about invisible beings and trees falling without making sound, should shut up, because each of them makes the same assumption, because all of them take stairs instead of jumping out of windows purely because from the observation, that the last 1000 times taking the stairs instead of jumping out of windows was preferable, they conclude that there is some order in the universe, which has the consequence that stairs are preferable for humans instead of jumping out of the window.
So they all use daily the assumption sciences is making and therefore are in no position to call sciences down for making this assumption. But sciences is well suited to call them down for making a host of other assumptions.


And not to forget, scientists make the assumption, that there they are not some brain in a tank fed some virtual reality, but again everybody else assumes that, so nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[Arthur Mann]

assumptions scientists must take on faith

I think its incorrect to say science isnt faith based.

There are a few things scientists have to take on faith:

• the universe is real
• the universe is governed by immutable physical laws
• through our senses we can detect reality and through our reason we can determine the immutable physical laws

 

[blobru]

I think its incorrect to say science isnt faith based.
As bad astronomer states, science starts with an assumption about the universe. But this assumption cannot be proven by further observation, because any conclusion from the observations relies on the assumption.

As an hypothesis, it's confirmed by the success of scientific predictions and the technology which relies on them.

E.g. if a scientists tries to understand lightnings and through observation and deduction concludes, that lightning is caused by the build up of charge in the atmosphere and is able to derive some mathematical understanding that allows him to make predictions about when and where lightning is to be expected, this does not show, that the initial assumption about an ordered universe is correct.

It could also be possible, that the greeks were correct and lightning is thrown by Zeus upon his whims. And that just currently Zeus decided not to cast his lightning if someone angers or defies him, but only when there is sufficient thing human call electric charge and when the human invented laws of electromagnetic interaction would indicate a lightning strike to be likely. At any arbitrary point in the future Zeus might decide, that it had been enough fun too fool humans into thinking the universe is ordered and blast all scientists to ashes so that the rest of humans again learn to respect Zeus.

The order hypothesis is locally confirmed and tentatively extrapolated. Metaphysics is irrelevant. The cosmos might be Zeus hurling lightning bolts at unicorns farting rainbows for all we know. Science's job is to predict the pattern of the "rainbows" as best it can.

But still all the philosophers and theologians, with their imaginative thinking about invisible beings and trees falling without making sound, should shut up, because each of them makes the same assumption, because all of them take stairs instead of jumping out of windows purely because from the observation, that the last 1000 times taking the stairs instead of jumping out of windows was preferable, they conclude that there is some order in the universe, which has the consequence that stairs are preferable for humans instead of jumping out of the window.
So they all use daily the assumption sciences is making and therefore are in no position to call sciences down for making this assumption. But sciences is well suited to call them down for making a host of other assumptions.

Science is empirical method. "Faith" as it applies to ideologies describes assumptions which are believed without ever being methodically confirmed ("God exists"; "there is an afterlife"; "I have a soul"; etc.) That distinction in mind, you're right science doesn't rely on any other non-empirical assumptions.

And not to forget, scientists make the assumption, that there they are not some brain in a tank fed some virtual reality, but again everybody else assumes that, so nothing to be ashamed of.

Again, metaphysics is irrelevant to science; so there is no shame, virtual or not.

 

[eerok]

There are a few things scientists have to take on faith:

• the universe is real
• the universe is governed by immutable physical laws
• through our senses we can detect reality and through our reason we can determine the immutable physical laws

I disagree. These things are not taken on faith at all, but provisionally accepted only insofar as they are accurate and useful. In other words, we will pursue science -- the methodological accumulation of objective knowledge -- as long as this pursuit continues to work. If it ever happens that reality as we know it stops working, we'll rethink it.

It's clear that one needs to redefine what faith means in order to apply it to science, and in so doing, service is done to neither faith nor science.

 

[RVM45]

The Scientific method, if applied diligently, by enough practitioners over a long enough period of time--Seems to result in an ever more consistent explanation of under-riding mechanisms.

Also, there can be little doubt that the diligent; even obsessive record keeping that is a part and parcel of good science lets us take advantage of the myriad Serendipitous discoveries that one makes while pursuing Science.

Has anyone ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"?

Let's examine Pirsig's Axiom: "The number of possible Hypothesis to explain a given Phenomena is Infinite."

When you finally climb that very high Truth Tree to its furthest extrapolation. When you finally have an absolutely airtight; 100% consistent Theory of Everything {TOE}.....

Is there any way to prove, that at one or more junctions of the Tree, a branch you wrote off as somewhat less promising many generations ago--might have eventually led to another perfectly consistent TOE--That was nonetheless, completely different than the current TOE?

Well, you can't prove that, until you can figure out how to test each and every one of those infinite hypothesis that present themselves at every branching of your truth tree.

Kinda takes the steam out "This is the one Truth".

Problem #2} So far we haven't yet come to something that Man's brain can't handle--at least at some level of abstraction.

But neither Science nor Common Sense can rule out a day when we look at something and are forced to say: "This far we cab go, but no farther--because this is too complicated a concept for the human mind to grasp....."

Just for instance--What if understanding the Ultimate TOE required one to be able to mentally picture objects with Seventeen Spatial Dimensions--and five Temporal Dimensions--Not saying that the Universe is necessarily that complicated--just that the TOE was?

Finally, we can manipulate an old Chestnut to arrive at a pleasing truth.

"If God is all powerful, can he create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?"


Restate the Problem in its most General terms:

"Can an Omnipotent being create an unsolvable problem for himself?"

We have come up with an "Anti-Tautology" [Contradiction, if you will] that seems to prove that Omnipotence cannot Logically exist.

There are two horns to this Dilemma: Either there is no such thing as Omipotence--So far as I know, there are many who believe this.....

Or, if Omnipotence does exist--It has to obey a whole other sort of Law than Logic--and in all probability it is beyond the power of the human mind to fully comprehend.....

An elegant example of the "Too Complex Problem."


So you build a huge computer--or you genetically alter your children to have larger Brains.....

And once again, you have to put your faith in either Big Brained Mutants Offspring--or Big Brained Machines.....

.....RVM45

 

[!Kaggen]

We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

Great article emphasizing the a priority belief system implicit in current science

 

[Chodorov]

Science, properly considered, is not faith-based. But modern science is to a very large extent. The belief in the Big Bang. The special relativity dogma. The irrational belief in using chemo-therapy. Everywhere we see faith-based unscience.

 

[Chodorov]

Modern science is largely faith-based. For example the Big Bang theory is a faith-based creation theory. Total mindlessness and disproven already. Special relativity advocates are actively hostile to the scientific method, and so forth. These are cultural problems we are having right now, and one hopes we will transcend all this woo.

 

[piojunbabia]

In my honest opinion, i think some science related topics are faithbased. On the other hand scientist who are "atheist" try to make or prove a scientific theory by contradicting the faith just like what Charles Darwin was trying to do.

 

[stevea]

yes, there is evidence that gravity and the sun will produce in the future. We see past events and use the information to prove the upcoming future.

Ridiculous. 300 years of empiricist says you are dead wrong. Science doesn't produce proofs, an extrapolation is not evidence.

 

[Chodorov]

Ridiculous. 300 years of empiricist says you are dead wrong. Science doesn't produce proofs, an extrapolation is not evidence.

You do realize that you are making an inductive inference here don't you? The problem is that its not a good inductive inference. I call this reliance on this phony version of "empiricism" .... "pulling the Hume-Nuke". People tend to stand behind Hume because of his acknowledged brilliance. But his arguments against inductive inference have been summarised as "any single case of inductive inference is not the best." As one philosopher puts it, this is only a problem "where only the best will do."

Science properly considered never relies on any single inductive inference. A good scientist has three or more inductive inferences before breakfast. He will make dozens of inductive inferences. And if he is really good he will understand that most of these inductive inferences will turn out to be wrong.

The entirety of the scientific process does not rely on someone saying ..... all swans I've seen are white and therefore no swans are black.

This is an example of a single inductive inference on its own. Its not an example of the primacy of inductive inference with regards to the scientific method. The idea that we ought not use inductive inference is akin to saying that we must throw ALL our tools away on the grounds that no single one of them can be used to build the house entire. Should we throw out all our hammers on the grounds that the hammer alone will not erect a house?

This is a terrible misunderstanding of the scientific method. And yes its true. You are right. Many philosophers have been guilty of this misunderstanding.

 

[JoeMorgue]

People who think that science is faith-based are confusing Faith with Trust.

This, this, this a thousand times this.

I don't have "faith" that the sun is going to rise in the morning. I trust that it's going to rise based on my understanding of orbital mechanics. The two concepts could not be more different.

 

[eerok]

I don't have "faith" that the sun is going to rise in the morning. I trust that it's going to rise based on my understanding of orbital mechanics. The two concepts could not be more different.

I think this is even a stronger claim than is necessary. One can expect a continuous reality without actually trusting in it. We set our alarm clocks expecting that there will be a world to wake up to, but nothing is required beyond provisional acceptance based on a familiar pattern.

If we wake to a completely altered reality, well, we'll deal with that using whatever tools we might find to do so.

Faith is an emotional need. Period. Some people are just not built that way. This does not make their (our) sense of reality any less -- just different.

Those who can't imagine reality without faith have a poor imagination.

 

[Francois2807]

I think philosophically faith is very important to science. If you read the first section of Genesis It seems like a physics explanation of the big bang theory as would be told to someone who had no idea whatsoever about physics.
The printing press had its first use printing Bibles and I'm certain that was the idea that caused its creation. All science begins with a what if proposition and a certain amount of faith that something good will come of this idea.