Is science faith-based?

[The Bad Astronomer]

<h2 class="title"><a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/" rel="bookmark">Is science faith-based?</a></h2>


No.


Oh, you want details? OK then.

If you read any antiscience screeds, at some point or another most will claim that science is based on faith just as much as religion is. For example, the horrific Answers in Genesis website <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/anti-science" target="_blank">has this to say</a> about science:

Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some <em>a priori</em> belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).


This is <em>completely</em> wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is <em>not</em> faith-based, and here’s why.

The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.

A simple example: we see objects going around the Sun. The motion appears to follow some rules: the orbits are conic sections (ellipses, circles, parabolas, hyperbolas), the objects move faster when they are closer to the Sun, if they move too quickly they can escape forever, and so on.

From these observations we can apply mathematical equations to describe those motions, and then use that math to predict where a given object will be at some future date. Guess what? <em>It works</em>. It works so well that we can shoot probes at objects billions of kilometers away and still nail the target to phenomenal accuracy. This supports our conclusion that the math is correct. This in turn <em>strongly</em> implies that the Universe is following its own rules, and that we can figure them out.

Now, of course that is a very simple example, and is not meant to be complete, but it gives you an idea of how this works. Now think on this: the computer you are reading this on is entirely due to science. The circuits are the end result of decades, centuries of exploration in how electricity works and how quantum particles behave. The monitor is a triumph of scientific engineering, whether it’s a CRT or an LCD flat panel. The mouse might use an LED, or a simple ball-and-wheel. The keyboard uses springs, the wireless uses radio technology, the speakers use electromagnetism.<a href="#footnote">^*</a>

Look around. Cars, airplanes, buildings. iPods, books, clothing. Agriculture, plumbing, waste disposal. Light bulbs, vacuum cleaners, ovens. These are all the products of scientific research. If your TV breaks, you can pray that it’ll spontaneously start working again, but my money would be on someone who has learned how to actually fix it based on scientific and engineering principles.

All the knowledge we have accumulated over the millennia comes together in a harmonious symphony of science. We’re not guessing here: this stuff was designed using previous knowledge developed in a scientific manner over centuries. <em>And it works</em>. All of this goes to support our underlying assumption that the Universe obeys rules that we can deduce.

Are there holes in this knowledge? <em>Of course.</em> Science doesn’t have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.

<em>Science is not simply a database of knowledge.</em> It’s a method, a way of <strong>finding</strong> this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it’s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn’t work, we’d see it. Our computers wouldn’t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn’t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn’t work, our medicine wouldn’t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. <strong>Science is <em>not</em> based on faith</strong>. Science is based on <strong>evidence</strong>. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. <em>That</em> is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even <em>despite</em> evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

The next time someone tries to tell you that science is just as faith-based as religion, or that evolution is a religion, point them here. Perhaps the evidence of science may sway them. Perhaps not; it’s difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. But the next time they get on a computer, maybe they’ll take a slightly more critical look at it, and wonder if its workings are a miracle, or the results of brilliant minds over many generations toiling away at the scientific method.
<hr width=25% align=left/>

<font size=-2><a name="footnote">^*</a>The irony of Answers in Genesis denigrating science <em>on a website</em> is not lost on me.</font>



Article reproduced with permission from: Bad Astronomy Blog (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/) Copyright © 2008 All Rights Reserved.


A discussion about this article can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106792

[beeksc1]

Definitely, science is a process of replication
And it seems that spirituality can be oriented into science because unity most always is better than seperation.
There’s this book by Ken Wilber called The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of Science (1982)

In it he says,
“Modern science is no longer denying spirit. And that, that is epochal. As Hans Kung remarked, the standard answer to "Do you believe in Spirit?" used to be, "Of course not, I'm a scientist," but it might very soon become, "Of course I believe in Spirit. I'm a scientist."

[Darth Rotor]

I always thought science was curiosity based.

Scientists, on the other hand, are sometimes curiosity based, other times ego based, other times obsession based, and other times free based. :)

DR

[blobru]

... There’s this book by Ken Wilber called The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of Science (1982)

In it he says,
“Modern science is no longer denying spirit. And that, that is epochal. As Hans Kung remarked, the standard answer to "Do you believe in Spirit?" used to be, "Of course not, I'm a scientist," but it might very soon become, "Of course I believe in Spirit. I'm a scientist."

:confused: Admittedly, I'm not sure how Kung is defining it (or Wilber), but based on what I know of current science, I can't think of any reason to extrapolate that scientists will all one day believe in "Spirit".

[Darth Rotor]

To play a few word games here, science is faith based insofar as scientists having faith that they can, with enough work and testing, and at times development of new tools and methods, find an answer. When a given answer presents another question to find an answer for, rinse and repeat.

[blobru]

To play a few word games here, science is faith based insofar as scientists having faith that they can, with enough work and testing, and at times development of new tools and methods, find an answer. When a given answer presents another question to find an answer for, rinse and repeat.


I don't know if that's the same "faith" Phil is writing about, absolute committment to an unverifiable belief system, or in any event that it's essential to science.

Faith in the religious sense is a decision to believe in something because my life would be worse if I didn't. The meaning I derive from my faith, the effect it has on my life, then becomes a reason for having the belief, in addition to whatever evidence and logic pro and con one might muster. It is also the claim that the universe has a human purpose, and that absolute knowledge of that purpose is possible, and necessary, for man.

That's what separates faith, and religion, from science, and doubt. Any scientist who argues something is true because life would have less meaning if it weren't, that he is absolutely sure of it, because it serves the universe's and our common purpose, is... possibly insane; irrational at least, and unscientific. For science is the eradication of faith through rigorous and systematic doubt.

Now, some scientists may indeed have a sort of "faith" in their work, I don't know. For some, absolute confidence may inspire them to work harder just as religious faith inspires the religious to lead better lives, or so the argument goes. I'd tend to characterize it as confidence in their abilities, and not faith in science. But even if that confidence did amount to a sort of "faith" in every case, I don't see that it's essential to the business or definition of science. (Note also the danger for the scientist of her self-confidence leading to impatience leading to desperation to make a discovery, compromising her objectivity).

It seems to me science is based on a single assumption: "it works" (gives us working knowledge). As it is an assumption supported by all the literature and useful technology it generates, it need not be taken on faith. So -- although arguing from a different assumption than Phil (his is "the universe obeys a set of rules") -- I come to the same conclusion: science is not faith-based.

[Third Eye Open]

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

You say I have faith in the books and people that teach me Science? No, it is not Faith, it is Trust.

Trust is based on past experiences whether they be mine or not.

Faith is by definition opposed to past experiences.

If I press the brakes on my car, I expect the car to stop. This is not faith, this is trust. It is based on all the past times I have experienced the brakes working. And before I had ever driven a car, my trust in the brakes was based on all the times I had ridden in a car and observed other people pressing on the brakes. And before I had ever ridden in a car, I trusted my parents that it would be safe because they had never misled me before.

Of course I can't know absolutely that my brakes will work. Nothing can be known absolutely, but that doesn't mean it takes faith to believe it.

Faith is reserved for things with no reason to believe. If it is not reasonable to believe something, it then requires faith to overcome the lack of reason.

Say I am allergic to strawberries. Every time I eat one, my throat swells up and I have to go to the hospital. I know, from past experiences that this has happened every time. Knowing this, it would require Faith for me to eat the strawberry and not expect to go to the hospital. Whether it be faith in my immune system, faith in the strawberry having different contents then usual -whatever- It is faith, not trust, that is used in this illogical situation.

[JamesDillon]

With due respect, Phil, I think you're kind of wrong on this one, for the very reason you point out: science does rely on an unprovable axiom, namely the premise of the uniformity of nature, which as Hume recognized cannot be proven logically or empirically. The fact that we appear to have made some pretty damned impressive predictions on the basis of the scientific method is not only irrelevant to the point but actually begs the question, since if Hume is right (and I've seen nothing--Popper included-- to suggest that he isn't) then we have no rationally defensible reason whatsoever to assume that any prediction based on the inductive process of scientific reasoning is valid regardless of the number of times such reasoning has worked in the past. I don't like that fact, and I'm certainly not here arguing in favor of faith-based epistemology, but I've never seen a solution to the problem of induction that resolves it. Much to my regret, after reading your post, I still haven't.

[astorix]

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


This is an excellent perspective and the difference between the two is something I hadn't really thought of before. I trust that the remote will turn the TV on because it has worked hundreds of times before when I used it. Having faith that the remote will turn on the TV if you stare at it long enough and pray hard enough is really quite irrational, and therefore faith is irrational. Frequently I use the word faith when I really mean trust, like having faith that the sun will rise in the morning. I will be more careful with the two words in the future.

[Corpse Cruncher]

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

You say I have faith in the books and people that teach me Science? No, it is not Faith, it is Trust.

Trust is based on past experiences whether they be mine or not.

Faith is by definition opposed to past experiences.

If I press the brakes on my car, I expect the car to stop. This is not faith, this is trust. It is based on all the past times I have experienced the brakes working. And before I had ever driven a car, my trust in the brakes was based on all the times I had ridden in a car and observed other people pressing on the brakes. And before I had ever ridden in a car, I trusted my parents that it would be safe because they had never misled me before.

Of course I can't know absolutely that my brakes will work. Nothing can be known absolutely, but that doesn't mean it takes faith to believe it.

Faith is reserved for things with no reason to believe. If it is not reasonable to believe something, it then requires faith to overcome the lack of reason.

Say I am allergic to strawberries. Every time I eat one, my throat swells up and I have to go to the hospital. I know, from past experiences that this has happened every time. Knowing this, it would require Faith for me to eat the strawberry and not expect to go to the hospital. Whether it be faith in my immune system, faith in the strawberry having different contents then usual -whatever- It is faith, not trust, that is used in this illogical situation.
By reading your post on the differing definitions of trust and faith, the two merge and appear to be one of the same concepts from my viewpoint.

Isn't it surely what concept that faith and trust are in that make the difference; if there in fact any difference? Trust in an object or a self-position; is equally the same in applying faith to an object or to a self-position; given the same parameters in the strawberry allergy of car braking system.

I have faith in the manufacturer of my car to ensure braking is achieved each and every-time I push said pedal. Therefore an assumption, loosely, in trust is also applicable that the car was built to a safe reliable standard.

But there is a but in that. Isn't it 'hope' and not faith or trust. I hope not to have a repeated allergic reaction; while equally hope that my car will stop when the brake is applied?

Going back to the OP; Science is about repeatable tests. Faith and trust do not, or, can I see, can be applied. Science is based on achievable facts proving what it seeks to prove. Facts are not necessarily true. There maybe elements of hope, which can merge into faith. As in hope that what test has been done 100 times before in the name of science, will still produce the same results again.

If by defining faith as a religious concept and by stating the defintion of a religious concept; as one that has followers, follows a code, addresses others, and in some instances has fanatics. Science is another religion - followed by those so inclined.

[melodious]

Science is based on evidence. Could faith be based on science?
I mean, aren't tenets base on observation? This is a question that I ponder...

If nature is observable and measurable, and even predictable, then weren't earliest theories based on what a HUman sees...?

[Radrook]

There is a confusion evident here concerning faith and blind faith. Obviously when Paul said in Romans chapter two that he believed in God based on what he observed in nature he wasn't describing blind faith but was giving us a logical basis for belief.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

So the concept that faith or belief in God needs to be blind and without foundation in the observable universe isn't scriptural.

Actually, even the belief in prophecy fulfillment which speaks of rewards to the isn't based on blind faith. It's based on the fulfillment of all previous prophecies which gives the believer confidence that the ones as yet unfulfilled will be also. So that also is based on observation of pattern and conclusions and not merely on blind belief without any perceivable evidence.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

So to discuss the issue God's existence from the blind-faith Biblical perspective-or from a supposed Christian blind faith perspective is actually a strawman argument.

[NonCleverName]

Trust? Faith? Jesus. I don't have faith or trust that my brakes will work. I know that, barring something interfering with the braking process, if my brakes work then they will work.

Seriously, philosophy is awesome and all, but when you start comparing observation and faith, it gets real stupid, real fast.

Anyone who has seen how brakes work, knows that they work. They also know that brakes wear out and will eventually cease to work. Now, when I get in my truck, I do not think to myself ''What if my brakes work?'' When my brakes start wearing out to the point that they need to be replaced, I will know.

Now, you can make the argument that something else could happen, such as someone messing with my brakes, thus causing them to not work. But this is just a ''what if'', although it is a possibility. What if someone shoots you as you get into your car? Do you have faith you will get into the car safely? Or do you have trust? Both questions are dumb. To avoid everything bad that could possibly happen, you'd have to live a pretty limited life. Plus, the stress of your obession would probably kill you anyway. :D

There are thousands of ****** things that could happen to someone during his/her daily routine. When I get into my truck in the morning, someone may shoot me. It's possible, but I don't think about it. I don't have faith, or trust, that I will enter my car safely. I am aware of the possibilities: I will enter my car safely, or I will not. No trust involved. What happens, happens.

I think some may be confusing our tendency to not consider possibilities beforehand, like taking the safety of food for granted. ''I have never eaten food that contained a lethal substance, so I don't think about it when I eat.'' That's not trust and it's certainly not faith. What one should be thinking before they consume food is this: Most people who eat food do not die from poisoning, but it's possible, so I must accept that in reality I may or may not die after I eat this.

[CrikeyBobs]

Comparing faith in a god with faith in axioms is as BA stated, pretty absurd.
In science and mathematics, axioms are relatively simple 'truths', from which more complex theorems are constructed. For a theistic religion, the god 'axiom' is the most complex thing imaginable. Any 'theories' derived from it must by definition be less complex, which is in direct opposition to science. Once you believe in the most complex thing imaginable, everything else is a given - no further thought is necessary.

With regards to the argument that we cannot prove that the universe applies its rules consistently throughout time and space, while it may be a philosophical problem, it certainly doesn't put science at a disadvantage to religion. If science notices something wrong then, eventually, the axioms will be questioned. Religion seldom (ever?) does this. For example, in the case of a calamitous natural disaster, some theists will add a "wrath" theory, while others will add the "moves in mysterious ways" theory to patch the cracks (of course I'm not suggesting that scientists are perfect in this respect, but science allows and actually demands that the basic tenets are subject to review) .

[jimmygun]

I have often told my religious nemesis that science builds its pyramids from the ground up and faith builds them from the top down. I ask them which is the more likely to be true.

[FuriousFunk]

The people that claim science is "faith based" are simply too ignorant to understand it so it must be faith based. This is also their argument for Religion, you non-believers don't believe because you do not know the power of the Lord. Science is based on reproduced studies that can be predicted 100% of the time. Faith that Jesus wont kill your child by making a drunk driver run over him is not predictable, it's random but since the drunk didn't hit the kid today it must have been Jesus protecting the child.
It never ceases to amaze me how dumb people are in today's world and how much they like to take credit for other people's accomplishments. We are primitive humans and we see ourselves as better because of what science and technology has brought us.

[Anaxes]

The people that claim science is "faith based" are simply too ignorant to understand it so it must be faith based. This is also their argument for Religion, you non-believers don't believe because you do not know the power of the Lord. Science is based on reproduced studies that can be predicted 100% of the time. Faith that Jesus wont kill your child by making a drunk driver run over him is not predictable, it's random but since the drunk didn't hit the kid today it must have been Jesus protecting the child.
It never ceases to amaze me how dumb people are in today's world and how much they like to take credit for other people's accomplishments. We are primitive humans and we see ourselves as better because of what science and technology has brought us.
One may observe that Christians often have the habit of attributing events or circumstances to procedures of Faith. E.g., getting that job was a "God thing"--I prayed about it a lot. This may reflect their actual conclusion; it also signals other Faithful that they are members of the group. Do not fall for the semantic ploy of equating "Faith" with belief. It is possible to believe many things in terms of being convinced as best judgment that something is true. If it is Faith, you MUST believe or risk going to Hell. My belief is revisable--life is a learning process.

[skeptic griggsy]

Faith begs the question of its subject as theists cannot give evidence therefor. Faith is the we just say so of credulity. As that great naturalist, Sydney Hook notes: Science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question "without Foundations"]
And this assuming equality between science and blind faith is the fallacy of equivocation. That bane!
Folks, unlike the great Dawkins, I'll take on those avant-guarde theologians, Keith Ward and haughty John Haught, whose theology ranks with than of Pat Robertson- nonsense!
Double depression is so depressing. I spend so much time@Amazon religious discussions and a bad dish have also kept Fr. Griggs from posting here.
Blessings and goodwill to all!

[Bunk]

This has always been my favorite BA blog post. I don't know how many times I've linked to it whenever someone is amused by my "faith" in evolution.

[shep]

This is one of the areas where, in the past, I tended to lose my footing in a debate, but I agree that there's a fundamental difference between religious faith and faith in a fundamental axiom like "The universe obeys a set of laws".

The latter is testable, the former is not. Not only is the latter testable, but the results of the tests tend not to surprise scientists as often as they would if their faith was misplaced.

I guess this is a long way of saying "It's the evidence, stupid!", but I'm a sucker for repeating other peoples' good arguments in my own (probably ignorant) terms...

Now.... there's a closely-related concept that "atheism is faith-based", and since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I think I do find myself having to defend my atheism just on axiomatic assumptions and reason alone. Can anyone point out where I'm probably going wrong here, or is this topic too much of a derail?

-shep.

[deRoy]

+1 for this.

[psychonaut]

I think the more fundamental axiom is: The Universe Exists (at all).


It's a pretty big leap to assume that the things we see "out there" correspond to actual objects in an actual space. Of course, we all act from this assumption, but it's more a description of human psychology than a proof that the external universe actually exists.

I think this point is more subtle than the fundee "Science is faith-based!" (which is a misunderstanding of science and well addressed by Phil here), but as long as we're talking axioms...

[iiwo]

Faith, by definition, is a confidence in things unseen, a certainty of things hoped for. (Loosely paraphrased from Hebrews 11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%2011&version=31))

Only in the loosest of definitions does 'science' fit this description. Science, or rather, the scientists "hope for" their hypothesis to be (in)correct. But that hope is hardly confidence--at least in the sense the author of Hebrews is using the word.

If anything, science (or at least the conclusion/theory part) is based on things SEEN and TESTED.

Where evangelists try to cop out is with the "we weren't there so we don't know" part of science. We didn't see dinosaurs, three foot dragonflies, tiktallik, or the big bang. Therefore it's faith. They circumvent the part where scientists announce HOW they know these things and simply use a line such as "we know, therefore we know", twisted in such a way as to do a mobius strip proud.

Science is not faith based, but it is often twisted or tweaked to make it appear as if it is. This is a (pun intended) tried and true hypothesis theory of mine.

[Parasitic]

The scientific method itself proves why such things like religion dont add up.
if there is such as one flaw in science, you must start the experiment, or what ever you doing again. from grade 1 science, to PHD level Astrology and physics. There must be no mistakes, or you become a scientist that is disrespected in the community.

I do not have a PHD in science, but, When out of high school i would like to try for physics, because of theese facts.

THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKES.
That being said,
It cannot be based on faith.
You get people like steven jones when you make mistakes.

[melodious]

It only took one quote in the Bible to allow me to see how science and God are connected.

God is light.

Light is energy

and this falls under Einstein's law of thermo dynamics: I & II.

[iiwo]

The scientific method itself proves why such things like religion dont add up.
if there is such as one flaw in science, you must start the experiment, or what ever you doing again. from grade 1 science, to PHD level Astrology and physics. There must be no mistakes, or you become a scientist that is disrespected in the community.

I do not have a PHD in science, but, When out of high school i would like to try for physics, because of theese facts.

THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKES.
That being said,
It cannot be based on faith.
You get people like steven jones when you make mistakes.

Good sentiment, I would alter it only slightly. "There can be absolutely no mistakes" left unaccounted for or uncorrected.

There will always be mistakes--one of the many goals of science is to make new experiments work based on previous ones, and previous ones better based on newer ones and/or newer materials, ideas, and equipment.

[Raze]

[...]

and this falls under Einstein's law of thermo dynamics: I & II.

Einstein's law of thermodynamics?

[Kritikos]

if there is such as one flaw in science, you must start the experiment, or what ever you doing again. from grade 1 science, to PHD level Astrology and physics. There must be no mistakes, or you become a scientist that is disrespected in the community.

I do not have a PHD in science, but, When out of high school i would like to try for physics, because of these facts.

THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKES.
That being said,
It cannot be based on faith.
You get people like steven jones when you make mistakes.

Good sentiment, I would alter it only slightly. "There can be absolutely no mistakes" left unaccounted for or uncorrected.

And I would alter the reference to "PHD level Astrology and physics." I hope that Cityinruin meant "astronomy." I don't think that you can get a Ph.D. in astrology, and in any case, it is not science.

[Stacy Head]

It only took one quote in the Bible to allow me to see how science and God are connected.

God is light.

Light is energy

and this falls under Einstein's law of thermo dynamics: I & II.

The bible is fiction

Einstein's law of thermodynamics is a theory based on scientific study

Science is not based on faith in response to your response.

Next...

[!Kaggen]

"one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules"

I am still not sure why this assumption is not an "a priori synthetic judgement", correct me if I am wrong?
Why can't one develop a theory of knowledge without any assumptions then the faith accusation will die the death it deserves?

[!Kaggen]

"one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules"
This is still an "a priori synthetic judgement".
Why can't we attempt a theory of knowledge without any assumptions?
I do not see how this will affect the validity of science at all.
It will however get rid of the question around faith once and for all.

[Raze]

"one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules"
This is still an "a priori synthetic judgement".
Why can't we attempt a theory of knowledge without any assumptions?
I do not see how this will affect the validity of science at all.
It will however get rid of the question around faith once and for all.

Before you go there you have to ask the question, "what does the question 'Is science faith-based' mean?"

Is math based on faith? According to one interpretation of the question, yes. Because the entire structure of mathematics rests upon axioms that cannot be proven mathematically (the assumption that x = x). Then again, on the other hand, an axiom is self-evident. And so you could argue that math is not faith-based, at least within the context of mathematics.

In fact, you can go DesCartes' route and say that mathematics rests upon the assumption that an "Evil Genius" isn't tricking us every step of the way with faulty logic that we think is correct logic.

But within the context of mathematics, I doubt you will find a mathematician or anyone competent within mathematics that will say that math is based upon anything other than rigorous logic.


As for science, the question of whether or not science is faith-based is one that lies outside of science in the first place. As is the question of whether or not our senses are perceiving any "true" data from the universe, or whether any "true" data can even be ascertained in any way, or whether the universe behaves in any way that can be modeled scientifically. None of these are in the domain of science. And I would say that science is not "based on" any of them. Science is based upon experimental data that can be analyzed and quantified.

Whether or not experimental data that can be analyzed and quantified exists is entirely independent of whether or not science exists, because science is nothing but a method of inquiry. In order for science to be carried out, then there must be something that can be examined, but it doesn't follow that the scientist must be in principle able to quantify something in nature to be doing science. The scientist could be forever doomed to fail in all his endeavors, yet still be doing science.

Of course, I am quite sure this is not where the thread is supposed to go, and I am a terrible armchair philosopher, so I'll let it lie here and look at it from a different angle.






During the scientific method, a scientist will make hypotheses about something s/he observers. S/he will then formulate mathematical laws predicting the behavior of the system s/he is analyzing. At this point, you could argue that the scientist is having faith that his/her hypothesis is the best of all the possible hypotheses s/he could formulate given his/her knowledge of the system. But the scientific method continues, and the hypothesis is tested. Then when inevitably the hypothesis turns out to not be perfect, the scientist modifies the hypothesis. This process continues until the scientist's hypothesis matches the data in all cases to the degree that measurement capabilities allow.

Then, again, you could say faith comes into play: the scientist has faith s/he has formed a good theory. Not an absolutely correct one, however, since any good scientist will be aware that there will probably always be limits to any theory, as time has shown again and again that new testing leads to new modification of theory.

So, although science is not based on faith, faith is not excluded from the scientific process in action.

Alright, I give up at the moment. Sorry for the extra boring post. :eye-poppi

[Blutarsky]

Science is, on a very basic level, based upon certain belief in ideas that are completely unprovable by the scientific method such as logic and reason. Science presupposes logic, so to argue that the scientific method can "prove" that logic exists would be to argue in circles.

Whether you consider that a priori or "properly basic" belief to be "faith" or not seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs to me...

Einstein's law of thermodynamics is a theory based on scientific studyIt may come as a shock to you, but there are many presuppositions that are completely unprovable scientifically that form the basis for scientific ideas such as the theory of relativity. For example, the belief that the speed of light is constant between any two points in space. We "believe" this to be true, but it's completely unprovable. You can find many of these suppositions in various scientific disciplines.

What also interests me is why the universe behaves according to any particular set of rules to begin with...

[likelystory]

People have the ambition to succeed in Science.So I say it's faith which drives people to succeed in reaching possible scientific conclusions.

I don't believe people only use the belief called ''faith'' for religion only.

Faith covers a broad spectrum of things.

[joesixpack]

I always thought of science as "Doubt" based. I mean, after all, where would science be without the testing of assumptions and asking questions?

[blobru]

I always thought of science as "Doubt" based. I mean, after all, where would science be without the testing of assumptions and asking questions?


Nowhere.

That's the key right there, joe.

In science, doubt combats faith; in religion, faith combats doubt.

No human activity is free of "faith", but the scientific ideal is.

[Bill Thompson]

only fake science is faith based.
like BYU fact finding missions to support their fath.

[stevea]

Hmm - I think there is something to this, but ...

First "science" does not presuppose that the universe must obey rules. It only attempts to model observations of the universe with rules. It's foolish to confuse the model with reality (which is were David Hume's point comes it). Further we underestand in recent decades that here are fundamental limitations to our observations which restrict our ability to form models.

Now the person who believes that the preponderance of past observations can be extrapolated to the future, or more colloquially believes that his brakes will operate as before barring a defect, is exhibiting the same sort of faith that all of probability is built upon.

Science is an extremely successful and useful model making method, but it does not deserve our faith - only the recognition that it is effective and pragmatic.

[Soapy Sam]

Funny. The more the evidence accumulates, the stronger my faith becomes.

[stevea]

Funny. The more the evidence accumulates, the stronger my faith becomes.

But you have no evidence the Sun will shine or even that gravity will exist tomorrow ! It's extrapolation from past experience, not evidence at work. Scientists have faith that tomorrow will be a lot like yesterday and often assume without evidence that yesterday was a lot like today.

[Landrew]

I have also heard science being called a faith-based belief system. I disagree, because I see religion starting with it's conclusions first, and working backwards. For example: the bible says that the earth was created magically in six days, 6200 years ago, more or less, therefore the only evidence that counts is that which agrees with the bible.

Science does not start with the conclusion. Conclusions come only after all the evidence has been considered according to the scientific method. Even then, the conclusion is not asserted as a fact, and held up for peer review. This is a much more intellectually honest approach.

There is faith in science, but it comes about as a result of consistency and repeatability, not merely posited from a religious institution as an unquestionable fact.

[FuriousFunk]

But you have no evidence the Sun will shine or even that gravity will exist tomorrow ! It's extrapolation from past experience, not evidence at work. Scientists have faith that tomorrow will be a lot like yesterday and often assume without evidence that yesterday was a lot like today.

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. The mass required for Gravity is still here and there is no indication that gravity has ever stopped functioning. The Sun will continue to shine because we see that it has plenty of Hydrogen inside it and we know that the photons from the sun was produced as much as 100,000 years ago so there is certainty that the Sun will shine for at least another 100,000 years as of today barring any celestial collisions. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that a magic man is controlling it. I do see the Christian logic in claiming to but not reading ONE book and then claiming to know everything instead of actually reading THOUSANDS of books and claiming to understand a specialized field. This idea of science requiring Faith is the Christian attempt to make science into a religion. Science is based on reproducible events that are predicted, there is no faith involved because we have this thing called peer-reviewed where nothing is considered a law until it's proven to the consensus of the science community. We don't read books that include unicorns, dragons, talking donkeys, bushes and snakes and then say "Well, it must be true because it's in this book that I am supposed to believe". Every answer is not in your book of fiction that requires you to ignore logic and have faith. The only faith in science is that we trust that the previous facts are true and the great thing about science is that we challenge ALL facts at all times, all assumptions are subject to scrutiny.

[Landrew]

Yes there is evidence that the sun will shine tomorrow and it's good evidence. That's not absolute proof of course, and technically, there is no such thing as evidence which stands as absolute proof. I think that's what was meant by "no evidence." (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Almost anything qualifies as "evidence," but is it good evidence? Science was invented as a tool to test evidence and apply weight of credibility, or a level of scientific certainty to evidence (or take it away). The more we apply skepticism and science to "evidence" and assertions, the more weight of certainty (or uncertainty) we can acquire in our own beliefs.

[brantc]

"And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence."

Yes that is true, but science determines the validity of the evidence, it doesnt just look at all evidence equally, so the theory(model) actually leads science these days.
So if you are partial to a theory then alot of times its your conviction that causes you to continue on wrong or right.

The way science should be done is go where the evidence leads you no matter what your theory.

And also to not ridicule anyone for having a different theory(crack pot, woo, WRONG, etc,).

[fossilhound]

"And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence."

Yes that is true, but science determines the validity of the evidence, it doesnt just look at all evidence equally, so the theory(model) actually leads science these days.
So if you are partial to a theory then alot of times its your conviction that causes you to continue on wrong or right.

The way science should be done is go where the evidence leads you no matter what your theory.

True. Which is where publication and peer review take over, by skeptical experimenters who look for those errors caused by personal bias.

[eerok]

True. Which is where publication and peer review take over, by skeptical experimenters who look for those errors caused by personal bias.

This is exactly right. Science is a methodology, and nothing can be skipped. The checks, quibbles, and refinements that flow from peer review are as essential to the goal of objectivity as any other part of the method. And objectivity is inarguably the goal of science.

[QuestioningAnswers]

“Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe.”
- Albert Einstein

Science is indeed based purely on faith; the faith that you live in an objective universe. You could just as easily be living in a subjective universe in which you are unknowingly creating everything you are experiencing. With that possibility, you must take it on faith that you’re living in an objective universe and not the subjective one that only seems objective.

As Einstein said so well, scientists are truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe. ;)

[Nichiro]

A man once said that I am an atheist. I have no faith.
I told him "Fine. Do you drive a car? He said yes. I asked him if he reached home safely daily in the evening for his dinner with the family? He said yes."
Then I told, you might be an atheist not believing in God. But you do have faith.
He asked me How?
I said, "You have faith in braking system of your ca, you have faith that the driver in front and back of you knows how to drive. You have faith that the traffic cops are doing their duty. You have faith that lights will work when there is darkness. You have faith that your family will be there when you reach home safely. You have faith that dinner will be served when you reach home.
Thus your life is full of faith.

It is enough if you have faith.

[eerok]

It is enough if you have faith.
This doesn't bear at all on science, where one is merely required to provisionally accept things. This is not at all like having faith in things.

Faith is not adaptable, but science is designed to adapt to new information.

[blobru]

“Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe.”
- Albert Einstein

Science is indeed based purely on faith; the faith that you live in an objective universe. You could just as easily be living in a subjective universe in which you are unknowingly creating everything you are experiencing. With that possibility, you must take it on faith that you’re living in an objective universe and not the subjective one that only seems objective.

As Einstein said so well, scientists are truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe. ;)

Science is based on the hypothesis that the universe is orderly. That hypothesis is confirmed by the success of well-ordered scientific models. So it is an experimentally confirmed confidence, or "faith", distinct from and much stronger than the unquestioning faith in the authority of the Bible which Einstein abandoned as a child.

Einstein's sayings, strewn haphazard about the net, are playfully terse and poetic, and without context easily misconstrued. I'm not sure the source of this quote (I have seen it attributed to the 18th century British chemist Humphry Davy, though as far as I can tell, this is erroneous), but assuming it is his, in the full context of his writings, he's clearly not saying that Science is based in the same sort of faith in authority that Religion is, and which Einstein explicitly rejected. It is based in careful observation, speculation refined by experiment, which inspired in Einstein a lifelong awe at the grand order it reveals. If one goal of religion is to reveal the universe and our place in it, then, in this poetic sense, science is true "religion", and scientists are truly "religious", because their understanding of and respect for the universe surpasses traditional, authority-based religion, would seem to have been Einstein's intent. However, I would be interested to see the quote in full context.


A man once said that I am an atheist. I have no faith.
I told him "Fine. Do you drive a car? He said yes. I asked him if he reached home safely daily in the evening for his dinner with the family? He said yes."
Then I told, you might be an atheist not believing in God. But you do have faith.
He asked me How?
I said, "You have faith in braking system of your ca, you have faith that the driver in front and back of you knows how to drive. You have faith that the traffic cops are doing their duty. You have faith that lights will work when there is darkness. You have faith that your family will be there when you reach home safely. You have faith that dinner will be served when you reach home.
Thus your life is full of faith.

It is enough if you have faith.

Again (and this confusion of experimentally or experientially confirmed confidence with religious faith in the authority of scripture is so pervasive it should have its own name, zip code, and congressman: "the G g equivocation": Faith in God = faith in gravity... NOT!), you are confusing two different things, which owing to the limits of the English language happen to be referred to by the same word, but which are nevertheless different, as different as an iconic 70's rock band is from Elizabeth II, so different, in fact, as to be opposites.

The "faith" referred to above -- in your car's brakes and traffic lights and dinner when you get home -- is confidence acquired from repeated observation and practice. It is based in testable experiment and simple experience. The very sort of thing that science deals with. It is not religious faith. There is a world of difference between "I believe the traffic lights will work today" and "I believe my soul will go to heaven when I die." The one is based on an experience you and others have had many times before, and thus have good reason to believe in; the other, is not.

[Bythemark]

A man once said that I am an atheist. I have no faith.
I told him "Fine. Do you drive a car? He said yes. I asked him if he reached home safely daily in the evening for his dinner with the family? He said yes."
Then I told, you might be an atheist not believing in God. But you do have faith.
He asked me How?
I said, "You have faith in braking system of your ca, you have faith that the driver in front and back of you knows how to drive. You have faith that the traffic cops are doing their duty. You have faith that lights will work when there is darkness. You have faith that your family will be there when you reach home safely. You have faith that dinner will be served when you reach home.
Thus your life is full of faith.

It is enough if you have faith.

Nope. Informal trials have been done on the reliability of the brakes, the dinner, the lights, the family's safety, and they've all been reliable. If, for example, the car's brakes are unreliable, we get them fixed and then test them out to make sure that they are reliable. The same goes for future scientific research--science has consistently gone forward and answered more questions, and it's not so much faith as it is observation of patterns that I believe that scientists will continue to answer questions and continue to make faith a thing of the past.

[jsullivan]

Many people of faith also are people of science; one must just understand the difference between faith based beliefs and hard science.

[Fox]

Faith is belief without evidence, science has evidence, so no.

[skeptic griggsy]

Apologists equivocate in using the term faith. They claim, as Dawkins's nemesis Alister Earl McGrath, that they mean trust rather than blind faith when they equate religion and science, but in the end they mean blind faith, because their arguments lack verisimilitude, and when someone doubts, they say have faith, but even if trust is meant, it becomes blind faith to overcome those very doubts!
Does anyone else have any observations on their use of the fallacy of equivocation? Dawkins won't touch thelogy, but I sure do, because of the no there there so as to expose it. Advance theologians like McGrath, WLC and Alvin Plantinga make no more sense than any fundamentalist theologian! Theology is just dressed-up animism behind one mindless spiriit.
Yes, mindless spirit.

[GracefullyTalentless]

Through empirical data, shouldn't a scientist do everything in his power to destroy anything he has faith in?

If he fails to do so, then does he no longer need faith?

[eerok]

Through empirical data, shouldn't a scientist do everything in his power to destroy anything he has faith in?
Faith is an emotion, and scientists have emotions like anyone else.

If he fails to do so, then does he no longer need faith?
I don't understand the question. In any case, a scientist need only respect the methodology to do useful science, since the scientific method is designed to promote objective knowledge. It doesn't matter what he/she believes otherwise.

[GracefullyTalentless]

Faith is an emotion, and scientists have emotions like anyone else.

You can't emphasise the emotional aspect of faith to the exclusion of its cognitive implications.

To do so is to suggest that that those with faith, of any kind, have given no thought as to the reason(s) to why they have faith.

My point was that a scientist who has a presupposition (a faith, if you will) should set out to prove that supposition wrong. He should place value on his doubt, rather than his faith, for that will be the defining characteristic of his nature - (perhaps it is what seperates him from a man worshipping the sun).

If he is unable to prove himself wrong, through repeated and replicable trials, he no longer needs to hold onto his presupposition.

[Anaxes]

The issue is one of sloppy semantics (which religionists love). As one of scientific bent, I make judgment decisions about truth based on the available information; this grades from pretty blasted certain it is wrong to blasted certain it is right, with a lot in the middle. At the extremes, I am at a point of belief, which is open-ended and subject to revision. Faith is something you HAVE to believe or risk going to hell (at least risk ostracism from the community).

[Tero]

Well, it's not the same. In real religion, feelings are involved. Well, I do think some stuff in science is cool, but it is not a personal fate issue. So not the depth of feeling that some people are addicted to in religion.

[Anaxes]

Many people are emotionally dependent on a doctrine derived from social milieu. Each of us grows up in a network of relationships. At earliest ages, we often imprint the emotional responses demonstrated by available elders. Some of us come to confront and question the set of conclusions implied by such experience; apparently, some never do. Some of us are fortunate enough to encounter circumstances which motivate the basic inquiry. Adherence to and elaboration of primarily emotion-dependent doctrine makes the content of such a form of ideology, not philosophy (certainly not fact). "Truth" as encountered in most religious contexts, implies consistency with accepted doctrine, rather than having some accurate relationship to any aspect of existence described by the terms involved. [How do you paragraph within these windows?]

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) 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. :cool:

[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]

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]

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. :eye-poppi

[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]

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. :o

[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 :cool::eek::cool:

[!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.

[JoeBentley]

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.

[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".

[stevea]

"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?).

It is trivial to construct examples where the scientific method is suboptimal. For example the "Occam's razor" feature requires that we choose the hypothesis which matches the data and has the least number of presuppositions (simplest). But obviously sometimes the simplest hypothesis is not the correct one.

Clearly "the scientific method" is not the only possible model building scheme. At least in some cases it is not the optimal model building scheme. It's almost unimaginable that it's the "best" in any meaningful sense.


"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.

If you think I said that we subjectively observe models, then you have misread it entirely. We subjectively observe experiments. We collect this subjective data and using the sci-method produce a model of the subjective observations. As you describe we continue to refine and revise the model - but that doesn't change the fact that we are modeling based on subjective observations and comparing the results of the model to other subjective observations. I'll suggest read some D.Hume or other early empiricists philosophy.



""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"."

No - you are confusing my term "model building" with creation of a single testable hypothesis. The sci-method requires the creation of a single testable hypothesis. But once verified a hypothesis is added the the sum of (tentatively) accepted hypotheses that together form a coherent model of the physical observations.

We have one (rather fuzzy) model of physical reality that we call "science" that incorporates all tested-and-so-far-valid hypotheses.

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.
We can never know "the real world" through our subjective senses. It's a pleasant and common fantasy to assume that our observations accumulate a picture of reality rather than a picture of subjective human observations.


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.

I'm not interested in benefiting science at the moment - I'm interested in creating a coherent picture of exactly what science is and does. If we were to encounter some other advanced alien culture that understood how to make predictions and extrapolations about their subjective observations of the physical world - then we might find that their method of developing a model and our "science" are quite different. We might find that our monkey brains have "blind spots" that cause us to create incorrect or sub-optimal models, or perhaps there is something better than our application of probability to science.

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.

Sience has absolutely nothing to do with "truth". The point of science is to create a model that permits prediction and extrapolation of observations from observations. If the observations are distorted or a sham - then the sci-method may still work, but it isn't modeling "reality" or "truth"; it's modeling subjective human observations.

[Dave Rogers]

It is trivial to construct examples where the scientific method is suboptimal. For example the "Occam's razor" feature requires that we choose the hypothesis which matches the data and has the least number of presuppositions (simplest). But obviously sometimes the simplest hypothesis is not the correct one.

No, that's not tenable. You're assuming that there is a "correct" hypothesis that is correct in some way over and above being one of a set of hypotheses that correctly predict all known data, but that assumption is unwarranted. If we have a hypothesis that predicts all known data, then what other properties do we require for it? If we find, on amassing further data, that there is data that our current hypothesis does not predict, then we must replace it with a new hypothesis that does predict that data in addition to all the already known data; but that, too, is in accordance with Occam's Razor and the scientific method.

So what, precisely, are the properties required of your "correct" hypothesis other than correctly matching all the data?

Dave

[eerok]

If we have a hypothesis that predicts all known data, then what other properties do we require for it? If we find, on amassing further data, that there is data that our current hypothesis does not predict, then we must replace it with a new hypothesis that does predict that data in addition to all the already known data; but that, too, is in accordance with Occam's Razor and the scientific method.
Exactly. There is nothing dogmatic about science no matter what some might claim. Explanations only stick for as long as they are the best available. Everything is provisional and nothing is absolute, which is antithetical to anything faith-based.

[BazBear]

Faith is what it is. A belief in something not provable. It is okay to have such beliefs, but if they disagree with the provable or most probable, as they fit with the science that works, you must ask why? If you think the world is roughly 6000 years old, then your faith is in the way of reason, however if you accept your deity may have created our precious sphere of rocks and water a handful of billions of years ago, I think you are on the right track. For the record I am an atheist, or at least my "God" is the universe.

[stevea]

No, that's not tenable. You're assuming that there is a "correct" hypothesis that is correct in some way over and above being one of a set of hypotheses that correctly predict all known data, but that assumption is unwarranted.

I never said ONE "corrrect" hypothesis. The assumption is fully warranted and commonly observed. For any set of data we can create an infinite number of differing hypotheses that match these (and all other) observations. (Some of) these "currently accurate" hypotheses will make differing predictions under other conditions. So clearly some of the classes of 'currently accurate' hypotheses will later be verified and others falsified if/when we test.

Yes - obviously some hypotheses that match the current observations contradict each other in other domains and ranges of conditions. So selecting any one hypothesis without additional work will be certain to lead to errors. Therefore Occam's Razor often sleects a hypothesis that is later falsified. Occam's razor is intended to be a 'neutral' selection rule, however the definition of "fewer presuppositions' or "simpler" doesn't bear close scrutiny. We should at least have a schema that doesn't reject potentially accurate hypotheses, as Occam's Razor clearly does.


If we have a hypothesis that predicts all known data, then what other properties do we require for it?

Wrong question. It's which of millions of hypotheses that "accurately predict all known data" shall we accept ? Occam'sR requires the one with the fewest presuppositions, but that means we will be choosing hypotheses that will later fail, forcing revision. Perhaps we should consider the set of ALL supported hypotheses.

If we find, on amassing further data, that there is data that our current hypothesis does not predict, then we must replace it with a new hypothesis that does predict that data in addition to all the already known data; but that, too, is in accordance with Occam's Razor and the scientific method.

Yes - and this second 'better' hypothesis invalidates the first forcing revisions. The first hypothesis was wrong all along, and it was undoubtedly be used to make erroneous or at last imperfect extrapolations and predictions. It could be a costly blunder to accept the 'simplest' hypothesis rather than considering all supported hypotheses.

[QUOTE}So what, precisely, are the properties required of your "correct" hypothesis other than correctly matching all the data?

Dave[/QUOTE]

You miss the point. I am NOT creating any new requirement, and I am not suggesting that I can predict the single "correct" hypothesis. Never did, so don't strawman. I am pointing out that Occam's razor selects a single hypothesis as a tentative basis and in many cases the hypothesis is later falsified. It's entirely possible that there is a better basis for scientific development than this.


For example In Newtownian mechanics kinetic energy KE = (1/2)*m*v^2
In relativistic mechanics KE = (1/2)*m*v^2 * [ 1 + [(3/4)(v/c)^2 + (5/8)*(v/c)^4) + ....]]
which are terms in the maclaurin expansion of the Lorentz factor.

Obviously work in the early 20th century falsified Newton's eqn and supported Lorentz.

So all data available to Newton would have equally supported both Newtown hypothesis and the Lorentz form and a million others. The only distinguishing feature is that Newton had no argument in favor of the "extra terms". Or obversely - Newton had no basis for rejecting the extra Lorentz terms. Why one is considered a greater presupposition than the other isn't well founded. What is clear is the Occam'sR rejected the (later) supported hypothesis in favor of the (later) falsified hypothesis. That's not a good feature.

Perhaps we should consider a new scientific method that accepts (tentatively) ALL supported hypotheses, and only eliminates the falsified ones. This would leave the open questions open, rather than fill the gaps with simplistic presuppositions.

[Dave Rogers]

I never said ONE "corrrect" hypothesis. The assumption is fully warranted and commonly observed. For any set of data we can create an infinite number of differing hypotheses that match these (and all other) observations. (Some of) these "currently accurate" hypotheses will make differing predictions under other conditions. So clearly some of the classes of 'currently accurate' hypotheses will later be verified and others falsified if/when we test.

Agreed. Until the hypotheses are tested under these newer conditions, we cannot determine in advance which will fail, so at the earlier stage of knowledge we cannot select between them other than by some arbitrary criterion.

Yes - obviously some hypotheses that match the current observations contradict each other in other domains and ranges of conditions. So selecting any one hypothesis without additional work will be certain to lead to errors. Therefore Occam's Razor often sleects a hypothesis that is later falsified. Occam's razor is intended to be a 'neutral' selection rule, however the definition of "fewer presuppositions' or "simpler" doesn't bear close scrutiny. We should at least have a schema that doesn't reject potentially accurate hypotheses, as Occam's Razor clearly does.

The problem with that suggestion is that there must be an infinite number of potentially accurate hypotheses, and we cannot maintain all of them. If we maintain less than an infinite number, it seems a waste of effort to maintain more than one.

Wrong question. It's which of millions of hypotheses that "accurately predict all known data" shall we accept ?

No, it's which of an infinite set of hypotheses shall we accept? It's trivial to construct, from any hypothesis, a more complex hypothesis which explains all known data equally well, and this process may be repeated indefinitely.

Occam'sR requires the one with the fewest presuppositions, but that means we will be choosing hypotheses that will later fail, forcing revision. Perhaps we should consider the set of ALL supported hypotheses.

As will any other criterion that isn't based on knowledge that we do not have. So we can't consider the set of all supported hypotheses, because it's a task of infinite complexity.

Yes - and this second 'better' hypothesis invalidates the first forcing revisions. The first hypothesis was wrong all along, and it was undoubtedly be used to make erroneous or at last imperfect extrapolations and predictions. It could be a costly blunder to accept the 'simplest' hypothesis rather than considering all supported hypotheses.

OK, let's talk about cost. It may, indeed, be a costly blunder to accept the simplest hypothesis rather than considering all supported hypotheses. However, it must inevitably be a costly blunder to consider all supported hypotheses, for two reasons: firstly, some of them will at a later time be falsified, leading to your retrospective conclusion that any use of them was a blunder even if it didn't lead to any significantly inaccurate predictions of phenomena; and secondly, without the choice imposed by Occam's Razor, every phenomenon requires not a single, but an infinite set of explanations, and every calculation an infinite set of iterations. Without some selection criterion, no progress will ever be possible, because no calculation can ever be completed.

You miss the point. I am NOT creating any new requirement, and I am not suggesting that I can predict the single "correct" hypothesis. Never did, so don't strawman. I am pointing out that Occam's razor selects a single hypothesis as a tentative basis and in many cases the hypothesis is later falsified. It's entirely possible that there is a better basis for scientific development than this.

Yes, it's possible. Do you have any better suggestions than using the theory that combines being the simplest to use with being always correct as far as we know?


[...] So all data available to Newton would have equally supported both Newtown hypothesis and the Lorentz form and a million others. The only distinguishing feature is that Newton had no argument in favor of the "extra terms". Or obversely - Newton had no basis for rejecting the extra Lorentz terms. Why one is considered a greater presupposition than the other isn't well founded.

It really doesn't matter whether one is considered a greater presupposition than the other. What matters is that, if calculations of motion had been carried out using the full Lorentz form, enormous amounts of extra work would have been required, resulting in no benefit whatsoever. We are trying to reduce the complexity of tasks, not enhance it.

Perhaps we should consider a new scientific method that accepts (tentatively) ALL supported hypotheses, and only eliminates the falsified ones. This would leave the open questions open, rather than fill the gaps with simplistic presuppositions.

Perhaps, alternatively, we should carry on doing what we do at the moment, which is to take note of more complex hypotheses that explain phenomena correctly, to put them aside until their applicability can be determined in the light of new data, and in the meantime to use the simplest hypothesis that accurately predicts all the existing data. That way, we make our lives easier, rather than gratuitously, and potentially infinitely, more difficult, while retaining the potential benefit of more complex hypotheses as and when they're needed.

Dave

[stevea]

Agreed. Until the hypotheses are tested under these newer conditions, we cannot determine in advance which will fail, so at the earlier stage of knowledge we cannot select between them other than by some arbitrary criterion.

That statement is not supportable. Just because we haven't demonstrated any improved basis for selection among hypotheses does not mean that such a selection criteria does not exist. It also ignores my objection that Occam's Razor(OR) criteria is not easy to define in practice.

The problem with that suggestion is that there must be an infinite number of potentially accurate hypotheses, and we cannot maintain all of them. If we maintain less than an infinite number, it seems a waste of effort to maintain more than one.

Yes there are an infinite number, but I disagree that we can't maintain them all. Isn't this exactly what we do when we keep an open mind where evidence hasn't accrued ? Since this method avoids selection of a single likely-falsifiable hypothesis then it is not a waste of effort - it's potentially a great savings.

As will any other criterion that isn't based on knowledge that we do not have. So we can't consider the set of all supported hypotheses, because it's a task of infinite complexity.

No, it's not an infinite task. It's just a matter of directly representing our lack of knowledge within the scientific model rather than making a presumptive guess about the OR hypothesis.

OK, let's talk about cost. It may, indeed, be a costly blunder to accept the simplest hypothesis rather than considering all supported hypotheses. However, it must inevitably be a costly blunder to consider all supported hypotheses, for two reasons: firstly, some of them will at a later time be falsified, leading to your retrospective conclusion that any use of them was a blunder even if it didn't lead to any significantly inaccurate predictions of phenomena; and secondly, without the choice imposed by Occam's Razor, every phenomenon requires not a single, but an infinite set of explanations, and every calculation an infinite set of iterations. Without some selection criterion, no progress will ever be possible, because no calculation can ever be completed.

You are viewing my suggestion incorrectly. I did not say that we should should tentatively accept each individual hypothesis that matches current knowledge. I suggested that we tentatively accept the entire class as a whole. That we embrace and quantify the lack of knowledge. So there is no "costly blunder" coming down the road.

Occam's Razor does select a single simple hypothesis among the set, and therefore it typically selects a falsifiable (wrong) hypothesis. Any explanation based on this may be wrong as a result. You are assuming that an arbitrary simple guess at a hypothesis has more explanatory power then considering the full set of possibilities and the factual limitations of the observations..

Yes, it's possible. Do you have any better suggestions than using the theory that combines being the simplest to use with being always correct as far as we know?

My point is not to present some new scientific method full-blown, and it's not reasonable for you to (repeatedly now) demand that.. I am primarily arguing that the single hypothesis, Occam's Razor(OR) selection criteria is a very weak point in the 'standard model' and that there may well be better ways to represent observational knowledge.

What I am suggesting is that in addition to accumulating the simplest OR hypothesis that we also incorporate the limitations of the observations and conclusions directly in the model. We want the error bounds and we want the limited experimental conditions reflected in the model.

It really doesn't matter whether one is considered a greater presupposition than the other.


Perhaps you didn't recognize the language, but OR, and the parsimony principle is said to select the hypothesis with the least number of presuppositions. So yes it matters greatly wrt to the the 'scientific method' which hypothesis has the least presuppositions, since that determines which hypothesis is selected for inclusion.

What matters is that, if calculations of motion had been carried out using the full Lorentz form, enormous amounts of extra work would have been required, resulting in no benefit whatsoever. We are trying to reduce the complexity of tasks, not enhance it.

Aside: So Lorentz eqn has no benefit whatsoever over the Newtonian model ? That's not a statement I can support.

You are making another strawman argument against my suggestions. I never said that we should carry out calculations on the entire infinite class of hypotheses. Further the series expansion in this case has a closed form and is not hard to calculate.

You seem obsessed with the amount of computation involved, or with the theoretical complexity involved in considering a class of hypotheses but that is not really a great issue in practice. What I am suggesting is that there is no reason to promote one OR compliant hypothesis and exclude others in the model. There is no reason to allow extrapolation without a clear disclaimer. We can instead tentatively accept all compliant hypotheses.

Newton might study kinetic energy vs velocity & mass under a restricted range of velocities and mass and with some limited accuracy, and after some polynomial fitting might still conclude that KE = (1/2)*m*v^2 ,but ... A: under the range of the experiment, B: within some calculated error bounds, and C: other higher velocity terms are zero to within the accuracy of the experimental method. This form of hypothesis would incorporate the limitations of the hypothesis within the model. This form of conclusion does not contradict the relativistic calculation of KE. All this does is explicitly include the limitations in the model.

Perhaps, alternatively, we should carry on doing what we do at the moment, which is to take note of more complex hypotheses that explain phenomena correctly, to put them aside until their applicability can be determined in the light of new data, and in the meantime to use the simplest hypothesis that accurately predicts all the existing data. That way, we make our lives easier, rather than gratuitously, and potentially infinitely, more difficult, while retaining the potential benefit of more complex hypotheses as and when they're needed.

Dave

No - we should always try to improve over the status quo - even at the cost of some complexity.

Instead of tentatively accepted a single simple and likely wrong OR hypothesis we can incorporate the limitations of that conclusion directly into a model system. This prevents exclusion of other compatible hypotheses. It does not prevent any theorist from creating unjustifiable assumptions and extrapolations. The calculations are still the same except you must acknowledge the error bounds, the extrapolations and non-compliant conditions.

It's a little surprising that we haven't already created a formal model system for the scientific method. Modern computation is up to the task. I recall reading papers related to this as early as the late 1970s.

[Dave Rogers]

That statement is not supportable. Just because we haven't demonstrated any improved basis for selection among hypotheses does not mean that such a selection criteria does not exist. It also ignores my objection that Occam's Razor(OR) criteria is not easy to define in practice.

I'm not arguing that there is no possible criterion superior to OR, simply that we have none at present. If someone suggests a better one, then it's worh considering; until then, we're simply discussing meaningless hypotheticals.

Yes there are an infinite number, but I disagree that we can't maintain them all. Isn't this exactly what we do when we keep an open mind where evidence hasn't accrued ? Since this method avoids selection of a single likely-falsifiable hypothesis then it is not a waste of effort - it's potentially a great savings.

There's no need to reject unfalsified theories of greater complexity or requiring more unverified assumptions as possible future hypotheses, and nobody is suggesting that there should be. It's simply more economical of effort to choose a single current working hypothesis. If it isn't obvious why it's less effort to base our predictions on a single theory, rather than to have to perform them several times based on different theories that are known in advance to present the same result, it's a bit difficult to explain.

No, it's not an infinite task. It's just a matter of directly representing our lack of knowledge within the scientific model rather than making a presumptive guess about the OR hypothesis.

Occam's Razor explicitly represents that lack of knowledge, by virtue of being an arbitrary but well-defined means of choosing the theory of current usefulness. The fact that we employ it in the first place is a recognition that there are multiple theories of equal merit.

You are viewing my suggestion incorrectly. I did not say that we should should tentatively accept each individual hypothesis that matches current knowledge. I suggested that we tentatively accept the entire class as a whole. That we embrace and quantify the lack of knowledge. So there is no "costly blunder" coming down the road.

If we accept the entire class as a whole, then we take on an infinite task. If we select among the class in order to define a finite task, then we risk a "costly blunder" if the selection criterion excludes all theories that are required to explain new data. So, given that we risk a "costly blunder" in order to be able to make any predictions at all, we might as well do so in as efficient a fashion, by selecting a single workable theory.

Occam's Razor does select a single simple hypothesis among the set, and therefore it typically selects a falsifiable (wrong) hypothesis.

"Falisifable" =/= "Wrong". And any selected hypothesis or group of hypotheses must be falsifiable in order to be useful.

Any explanation based on this may be wrong as a result. You are assuming that an arbitrary simple guess at a hypothesis has more explanatory power then considering the full set of possibilities and the factual limitations of the observations.

No, I'm arguing that it is a practical impossibility to consider the infinite set of possible theories, therefore an arbitrary choice among them must be made in order for science to produce any useful results. The only argument to be had is over the set of criteria used for this arbitrary choice, and at present OR is the best one we know.

My point is not to present some new scientific method full-blown, and it's not reasonable for you to (repeatedly now) demand that.

Yes, in fact, it is perfectly reasonable. You're suggesting we abandon the foundation of the science and technology that makes our entire civilisation possible. It's perfectly reasonable to ask what you propose to use instead. And, if you haven't specific to offer, it's equally reasonable to ask you to get back to me when you have.

I am primarily arguing that the single hypothesis, Occam's Razor(OR) selection criteria is a very weak point in the 'standard model' and that there may well be better ways to represent observational knowledge.

What I am suggesting is that in addition to accumulating the simplest OR hypothesis that we also incorporate the limitations of the observations and conclusions directly in the model. We want the error bounds and we want the limited experimental conditions reflected in the model.

What makes you think we don't do that already? It's commonplace in science to recognise that the theories we have are valid only for the observational range over which they have been verified, and that observations outside that range may require new theories to describe them. Beyond that, how exactly are we supposed to incorporate knowledge we don't have yet into corrent theories?


Perhaps you didn't recognize the language, but OR, and the parsimony principle is said to select the hypothesis with the least number of presuppositions. So yes it matters greatly wrt to the the 'scientific method' which hypothesis has the least presuppositions, since that determines which hypothesis is selected for inclusion.



Aside: So Lorentz eqn has no benefit whatsoever over the Newtonian model ? That's not a statement I can support.

Please don't accuse me of making strawman arguments in the course of making your own. My point is that it's irrelevant to your specific example which is a greater presupposition, and that the Lorentz equation has no benefit over the Newtonian model for predictions in a regime where the differences are negligible. As, indeed, is still the case; most mechanics problems are still solved using the Newtonian model, because the insignificant corrections applied by using the Lorentz model confer no benefit whatsoever.

You are making another strawman argument against my suggestions. I never said that we should carry out calculations on the entire infinite class of hypotheses.

You can't have it both ways. Either we use an infinite set of hypotheses, which is a practical impossibility, or we select a subset of hypotheses on purely arbitrary criteria. If the latter, then OR is the best we know.

You seem obsessed with the amount of computation involved, or with the theoretical complexity involved in considering a class of hypotheses but that is not really a great issue in practice.

If you honestly think that it's no more difficult to simultaneously maintain a large set of models than to focus on a single one, then I wonder what reality you're inhabiting. It's a very serious issue if we're required to carry out every theroetical analysis several times over instead of just once.

Newton might study kinetic energy vs velocity & mass under a restricted range of velocities and mass and with some limited accuracy, and after some polynomial fitting might still conclude that KE = (1/2)*m*v^2 ,but ... A: under the range of the experiment, B: within some calculated error bounds, and C: other higher velocity terms are zero to within the accuracy of the experimental method. This form of hypothesis would incorporate the limitations of the hypothesis within the model. This form of conclusion does not contradict the relativistic calculation of KE. All this does is explicitly include the limitations in the model.

Fine, but that's implicitly understood by every scientist in every discipline. What exactly is it that you want us to do differently? If we have to "consider a class of hypothesis", do we just have to add disclaimers saying "This model may turn out to be wrong in the light of future discoveries"? If not, what? Other than maintain multiple parallel theories - a monstrous waste of time, given that all of them may well turn out to be incorrect - how are we supposed to do things, if not the way we do them now?

It's easy enough to make handwaving complaints that science doesn't live up to your own personal standards, but extremely difficult to make practical suggestions as to how it should. You're not offering any other than vague suggestions that we should somehow consider multiple hypotheses without actually having to do the extra work required to consider multiple hypotheses. Until you have something more concrete and less self-contradictory, I think we'll stick with a method that works well enough.

Dave

[Frank Merton]

Good sentiment, I would alter it only slightly. "There can be absolutely no mistakes" left unaccounted for or uncorrected.

There will always be mistakes--one of the many goals of science is to make new experiments work based on previous ones, and previous ones better based on newer ones and/or newer materials, ideas, and equipment.

I think that, maybe, a difference between science and non-science is just that--that science accepts that there will be mistakes, that no issue is ever finally and completely settled. Scientific theories are interpretations of the data, and the data can always be incorrect or incomplete and the interpretations can always be more or less adequate.

In fact, I don't see how any kind of credible truth claim of any sort can be otherwise--we are all subject to error, so our understanding of anything, even God's revelations, are subject to our human understanding, our prejudices, our cultural and even biological limitations. I suppose it's conceivable that God protects His revelations and somehow protects us from misunderstanding Him. No. I can think of all sorts of worse problems that notion creates.

[Frank Merton]

Faith is what it is. A belief in something not provable. It is okay to have such beliefs, but if they disagree with the provable or most probable, as they fit with the science that works, you must ask why? If you think the world is roughly 6000 years old, then your faith is in the way of reason, however if you accept your deity may have created our precious sphere of rocks and water a handful of billions of years ago, I think you are on the right track. For the record I am an atheist, or at least my "God" is the universe.I have never seen why religious assertions should be any more or less "provable" than anything else.

I can be said to have "faith" that Pluto is a planet, but then again maybe it isn't. That being understood, is Jupiter a "planet?" Isn't the assertion that it is at least in part an assertion of faith? How else can I know except by trusting what others tell me, and if not others, except by trusting my senses?

If the bush burns but is not consumed, I have reasonable "proof" that something interesting is happening. My interpretation of it as a miracle is my theory, perhaps supported by a voice I hear coming from the bush, but this only in the context of a world-view that says that fires consume and that miracles happen and there aren't any charlatans around who know how to make a bush appear to burn.

[MNBrant]

Yes, Science depends on machines to give them the answers. It also depends on the brain to interpret the answers and develop the questions. So you really got to be sure that your brain and the machine you are depending on are giving you the right answers to your questions.

[SKEPTICALSHAM]

Science is the most reliable faith. Any other endangers society and yourself.

[Robrob]

Faith based means assumptions based on faith (duh). Faith being the "evidence of things not seen" etc... Science is the opposite of faith. Faith can't be disproven. Science can be (and is) disproven.

[kowalskil]

Faith based means assumptions based on faith (duh). Faith being the "evidence of things not seen" etc... Science is the opposite of faith. Faith can't be disproven. Science can be (and is) disproven.

1) The word "faith" means different things to different people. To some it refers to belief in God, to other it is more general, for example, "I believe they will approve my decision."
.
2) Yes, mathematics is "assumption based," but not science. In science claims are based on verifiable experimental data.
.

[LSSBB]

Starting from Websters, there are different meanings of Faith, so I believe the answer to the OP is Yes and No:

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs e.g. "the Protestant faith"

Per definition 1b (2) there could be an argument that the ethical underpinnings of scientific organizations depend on a certain sincerity of intentions.

Definition 3 is where I believe many Creationists tend to accuse "Science" of being based in faith, in that there is frequently belief based on strong conviction among scientists, however they often blur that definition with the other two in making the accusation.

[kowalskil]

Starting from Websters, there are different meanings of Faith, so I believe the answer to the OP is Yes and No:

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs e.g. "the Protestant faith"

Per definition 1b (2) there could be an argument that the ethical underpinnings of scientific organizations depend on a certain sincerity of intentions.

Definition 3 is where I believe many Creationists tend to accuse "Science" of being based in faith, in that there is frequently belief based on strong conviction among scientists, however they often blur that definition with the other two in making the accusation.

An individual scientist cannot personally validate all claims, even in the area in which s/he is a specialist. Believing in what is stated by recognized authorities is very common in sciences. This is unavoidable. Is this is harmful? I do not think so.
.

[Robrob]

1) The word "faith" means different things to different people. To some it refers to belief in God, to other it is more general, for example, "I believe they will approve my decision."
.
2) Yes, mathematics is "assumption based," but not science. In science claims are based on verifiable experimental data.
.

Well to be fair, the OP is actually using it here in the religious sense.

[madfoot]

At a certain point, science has to be faith-based. True Skepticism is Solipsism, and I've never seen a rational rebuttal to Solipsism. It's usually just rejected out of hand as an unworkable philosophy.

[eerok]

At a certain point, science has to be faith-based.

To practice science, one need only provisionally accept that objective reality is consistent enough to be testable. Where would your "certain point" come from?

True Skepticism is Solipsism, and I've never seen a rational rebuttal to Solipsism. It's usually just rejected out of hand as an unworkable philosophy.

Solipsism has nothing at all to do with science. Neither does faith.