Is science faith-based?

[TubbaBlubba]

I think philosophically faith is very important to science.

How?

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.

Something as abstract as the big bang could be fitted into any creation story, and the Genesis accounts (either of them) don't fit especially well.

[/quote]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.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea what you're saying with this.

 

[eerok]

I think philosophically faith is very important to science.

Since faith is inherently subjective and science sets out to establish the objective, they are in fact at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Put another way, it's a poor faith that requires evidence, and it's a poor science that doesn't.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Is faith science based?

 

[Zeuzzz]

To elaborate more on that, what i mean is that if someone reads a study that having faith in a religion increases your happiness, life expectancy or general well being, and thus takes up a faith based religion to increase these aspects of their life based on the science, is this a science based faith?

 

[eerok]

To elaborate more on that, what i mean is that if someone reads a study that having faith in a religion increases your happiness, life expectancy or general well being, and thus takes up a faith based religion to increase these aspects of their life based on the science, is this a science based faith?

Faith requires one to reject evidence that's contrary to whatever one decides to have faith in. Science is evidence-based.

Faith is arbitrary, subjective, and absolute. Science is rigorously methodological, objective, and provisional.

So they are profoundly incompatible.

 

[Northern_warrior]

Science is fact based,and things like "the big bang" are hypotheses and theories..but still more logical reasoning is behind them then say "it all happened cause a magical creature got bored one day".
But many scientists are religious as well,you just have to keep them as companion pieces of sorts I think..there is no reason why the two cant coincide,unless you take the bible litteraly,in wich case ,you should reexamine your reasoning and/or mental health.

 

[immaterial]

Well at least we have to have faith in our own ability to reason. For without that ability, there would be no science. And we can't really test our ability to reason, can we, for the only tool we have to create such a test with would be the very same reason we're trying to test. That would be circular reasoning, literally.

 

[eerok]

Well at least we have to have faith in our own ability to reason. For without that ability, there would be no science. And we can't really test our ability to reason, can we, for the only tool we have to create such a test with would be the very same reason we're trying to test. That would be circular reasoning, literally.

A better tern for what you're describing is "expectation." It appears that we can reason, and we expect that we'll continue to be able to do so. "Faith" connotes strong, persistent belief despite absent or contrary objective evidence, which is the opposite of what science requires.

One only needs to provisionally accept a few basic things about reality in order to practice science, and none of these requires faith.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Science is based on the idea that things in the end will fall to reason. This amazed and inspired early figures such as Galileo, Kepler and Newton. Events fell to the predictions of their formulae. However as time proceeded the rules broadened and changed. Events in quantum mechanics were not predictable according to the older causality but to the broader principles of probability. However the computer I write on is based on quantum mechanics and it works.

All of the evidence or data is rarely available. We have also ceded to the new standards of "due to the preponderance of the evidence" & "beyond a reasonable doubt." One can say this must be based on a faith of sorts but it is not without any evidence such as is common in religious phenomena; such as: Moses talked to god and received the law on Mount Sinai, Mary was a virgin, Jesus was god incarnate, Mohammed ascended into heaven etc etc. We should be grateful that we have modern science even if it contains a weak form of faith.

 

[eerok]

Science is based on the idea that things in the end will fall to reason.

Nope. Science is based on the idea that reality is consistent enough to be tested. People love larding in a lot of other ideas, but it all amounts to hot air and wishful thinking.

Science uses all available means to establish objective knowledge about the observable world. It's basically a methodology that tests the objectivity of observations. That's it. And science works just fine as shown by the many technologies that have flowed from it. None of this has anything at all to do with faith.

 

[kenkoskinen]

The future is always an idea. The past has come and gone but we can look at historical data and compare it to those in the present. In these situations assumptions need not be required.

However there is a science-based faith and that is when we must rely on the preponderance of the evidence &/or beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes ... these standards are applied in court but even in science we rarely have all the evidence. We must extrapolate from the data to the more general case using one of the two principles. Statistics also play a role in the process of science such as in quantum mechanics were classical causality has been superseded by probability. The computer I write on is based on quantum mechanics but it works.

Any belief consists of our minds filling in the blanks between things known and unknown.
However faith in science isn't to be confused with religious faith where often there isn't any evidence to speak of and sometimes the laws of everyday physics were seemingly suspended, e.g. Jesus walked on water. In religious faith emotionalism trumps skepticism.

 

[stevea]

Nope. Science is based on the idea that reality is consistent enough to be tested. People love larding in a lot of other ideas, but it all amounts to hot air and wishful thinking.

Agreed, that one "act of faith" is that we assume our observation (not reality) is consistent enough to test.

Science uses all available means to establish objective knowledge about the observable world. It's basically a methodology that tests the objectivity of observations. That's it. And science works just fine as shown by the many technologies that have flowed from it. None of this has anything at all to do with faith.

Science merely produces a model of what we subjectively observe, and "the scientific method" is nothing more than a statement of principals for model-building. The concept of "objective knowledge" is not relevant, since all observations are subjective. We may be modeling a shared delusion.

The relative success (with notable failures and setbacks) of the scientific model is no proof that it is the only, or best means to create models from observations. There is no evidence that future observation will be predicable in any way. That's where faith in the model building scheme and the consistency of observation comes in. The scientific method has little foundation aside from the "mostly works" characteristic. So this is a reasonably successful scheme for building models that can currently predict future subjective observation, from past subjective observation. It's an error to confuse the models predictive methods with the actual mechanisms underlying the observations, or the observations with "reality".

 

[kenkoskinen]

Nope. Consistency is important but the idea that things in the end will fall to reason subsumes it. In order to work, science needs a world that can be understood via reason. It is the greater of the two ideas. If the world were consistently haphazard, for example, science could not be done. A science-based faith is required when we, for example, accept statistical evidence and analysis. We also rarely have all the evidence and must rely on the two standards I cited.

 

[Halfcentaur]

If science was faith based, then there is no such thing as anything that is not faith based.
Deep thoughts!

 

[kenkoskinen]

Agreed, that one "act of faith" is that we assume our observation (not reality) is consistent enough to test.



Science merely produces a model of what we subjectively observe, and "the scientific method" is nothing more than a statement of principals for model-building. The concept of "objective knowledge" is not relevant, since all observations are subjective. We may be modeling a shared delusion.

The relative success (with notable failures and setbacks) of the scientific model is no proof that it is the only, or best means to create models from observations. There is no evidence that future observation will be predicable in any way. That's where faith in the model building scheme and the consistency of observation comes in. The scientific method has little foundation aside from the "mostly works" characteristic. So this is a reasonably successful scheme for building models that can currently predict future subjective observation, from past subjective observation. It's an error to confuse the models predictive methods with the actual mechanisms underlying the observations, or the observations with "reality".

"The relative success (with notable failures and setbacks) of the scientific model is no proof that it is the only, or best means to create models from observations."

Yes it is, at least until something better comes along. Whatever it might be, its superiority would have to be proven (did I use that word?).

"Science merely produces a model of what we subjectively observe, and "the scientific method" is nothing more than a statement of principals for model-building."

We don't subjectively observe models. Models or theories are concepts we develop via reason i.e. including mathematics and observation/detection. We then use the models to continue comparing them to observations/detections and experimental data. If it continues to be accurate, then okay. If anomalies appear ... it's time to do some checking. It might lead to amendments to the model, scrapping it and/or creating a new model.

""the scientific method" is nothing more than a statement of principals for model-building."

No so, model building in only the conceptual part of the process.

"It's an error to confuse the models predictive methods with the actual mechanisms underlying the observations, or the observations with "reality"."

True ... the detection/observation methodologies/equipment etc. are not the same as the theory. However if the theory accurately and consistently predicts/describes/explains the data it's hitting something. We call it things in the real world.

If I follow you ... you would like to delete the terms "objective" & "reality." I fail to see how the world or science would benefit from doing that. Admittedly science isn't the pursuit of perfect truth but rather is very much a process of refinement of models and observations. The goal is to make corrections along the trail to find better models/theories and observations of objective reality! Yes ... the term "objective reality" is a fine concept and the term "subjective" is not superior.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Faith requires one to reject evidence that's contrary to whatever one decides to have faith in. Science is evidence-based.

Faith is arbitrary, subjective, and absolute. Science is rigorously methodological, objective, and provisional.

So they are profoundly incompatible.

Zeuzzz what you quoted was a scientific study comparing degrees of happiness on the religion variable. The study doesn't make the content of any religious belief scientific. eerok what you say is so but all of the data is rarely in so we do extrapolate from it to the general. We do the same thing when using statistics. Therefore science does assume and include some belief in the data and in its extrapolation. However, this doesn't make science a religion. There is a difference and as you clearly differentiated!

 

[tyciol]

I think we utilize some level of faith in our fellow man, but that's more of an option than a necessity. Ultimately, when we lack faith in the science produced before us, we are encouraged to test it, to research how these beliefs were formed and re-perform the tests these beliefs are based upon.

This is how I believe it differs from the type of "blind" faith required by many religions, because ultimately the proof of the faith working apparently requires faith beforehand as an ingredient to work, therefore it's the perfect escape clause when proof is not acquired: the person lacked faith therefore they were not supplied with proof to reinforce their faith!

Science doesn't work this way. You don't need faith in an outcome to test it, you merely must perform a test. This is why it is neutral and reliable.

 

[eerok]

eerok what you say is so but all of the data is rarely in so we do extrapolate from it to the general. We do the same thing when using statistics. Therefore science does assume and include some belief in the data and in its extrapolation. However, this doesn't make science a religion. There is a difference and as you clearly differentiated!

Sorry, but I forgot all about this little corner of discussion, and your remarks are well worth a response.

Simply put, science invites a change of opinion based on prevailing evidence. Yes, evidence in practice amounts to shifting sands, but the rejection of dogma and the emphasis on the provisional nature of what we know distinguishes the scientific approach from anything faith-based.

That's why I keep insisting here that science is antithetical to faith.

 

[Kumar]

If placebo effect is scientific, there can be a relation between science & faith.

 

[SpiritMuse]

This whole discussion reminds me of the immortal words of Tim Minchin:

"Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

From his beat poem "Storm".