Science is based on faith?

[xPixelatedx]

I know mentioning Extra Credits here is somewhat taboo, but I am not so much interested in them as much as the can of worms they just inadvertently opened. In their recent two videos they pointed out that some of science's roots were grounded in belief, because we are dealing with things we cannot prove (however likely they may be). This started a discussion that caused a lot of people to become rather defensive and upset. They recently made their closing statement on the argument and I have to say I agree with them.
Science is still based on evidence, it just so happens the evidence we currently have for any given topic could be wrong, we might not be seeing the whole picture or the limitation of us being human is whats causing us to error (in other words we will never know the answer). Because of all that we have to take some degree of faith into it to make many of our theories work at all. I just think people are frightened at the idea that science might not be entierly infallible, even though it's usually not a big deal when our facts turn out to be wrong. After all, if we knew everything, we wouldn't learn anything.

What do you guys think?

 

[Jacco]

I don't watch EC so I don't know the context in which they said that but science as science can never TRUELY be proven. We can be 99.99999999999 ad nauseum % sure but we can never be 100% sure.

Coincidentally, that is my main issue with the theist/athiest argument. Neither side can ever truly prove their side and eventually, when you dig far enough, both come down to "because that's what I think." But both sides claim evidence/lack of evidence as validation of 100% certainty. It's a nasty can of worms.

EDIT: In my haste to write this and be simple, it came out worded very badly and people are mistaking what I meant. Here is what I was trying to say only much more eloquently. haha

Before anyone jumps on this, it's worth pointing out that a Theory is the highest level of explanation in science and that no, a 'proven theory' does not become a 'Law'. The two are distinct concepts, the difference between which is perhaps best described thusly: Laws are observations, Theories are explanations for observations, which is why we have both the Law and Theory of Gravity. The former does not replace the latter, nor does the latter invalidate the former. It's also worth noting that contrary to popular usage, the word "Theory" in science is not used to describe uncertainty (on the contrary, a theory must be very well vetted with the available data to be described as such). Point of fact, the colloquial use of the word 'theory' better fits the scientific term 'hypothesis' than it does the scientific use of the word 'theory'.
That said, it is certainly true that everything in science adapts as new data becomes available. That's actually one of its greatest strengths. That's why the 'Plum Pudding' Atomic Model was replaced by the Rutherford Model, and the Rutherford Model replaced by the Bohr Model. While the Plum Pudding Model was an improvement over its predecessors, the Rutherford Model better explained the data than the Plum Pudding Model, and the Bohr Model ultimately improved upon the Rutherford Model. That's a bit that tends to get overlooked when people harp on how 'science changes'. The changes are not whimsical or random, they are made because the new explanation improves upon the prior model, typically in a way that hits much of the same explanations and expands upon them as the data dictates.

 

[JoJo]

True, we can never be 100% sure that any particular scientific theory is actually reality, but when it comes down to it that doesn't ultimately matter that much. As long as science can produce useful and testable models which we can use to benefit our lives, science will always give incredible benefits to our species. In the end does it really matter if the theories are true or not if they can make our televisions, space rockets and cancer medicine work?

 

[Asita]

The words 'belief' and 'faith' are really loaded terms in this context, given that certain groups have been making no small effort to use them to draw false parallels between Science and Religion for political reasons, usually with the implication that science somehow is a religion. Even ignoring that though, I have to question the train of thought here. Ultimately, if we use the explanation you describe them as using, it seems to me that we run into the issue of everything being ultimately 'based in belief', to the point that the argument almost seems to suggest solipsism. I believe the world exists, but no matter how likely that seems, I can't prove it. I believe I'm not in a dream, but I can't prove it. I believe that the sun will rise tommorrow, but I cannot prove it until it happens.

For instance, we know gravity works because we interact with it every day. But its still a "theory" as we don't completely understand it, hence the name "Theory of Gravity." Evolution is the same way. We think it happened and is happening and have evidence to support that, however we can never proof 100% that evolution is real. That's what science is. A constant revision of what we think we understand to something more likely.

Before anyone jumps on this, it's worth pointing out that a Theory is the highest level of explanation in science and that no, a 'proven theory' does not become a 'Law'. The two are distinct concepts, the difference between which is perhaps best described thusly: Laws are observations, Theories are explanations for observations, which is why we have both the Law and Theory of Gravity. The former does not replace the latter, nor does the latter invalidate the former. It's also worth noting that contrary to popular usage, the word "Theory" in science is not used to describe uncertainty (on the contrary, a theory must be very well vetted with the available data to be described as such). Point of fact, the colloquial use of the word 'theory' better fits the scientific term 'hypothesis' than it does the scientific use of the word 'theory'.

That said, it is certainly true that everything in science adapts as new data becomes available. That's actually one of its greatest strengths. That's why the 'Plum Pudding' Atomic Model was replaced by the Rutherford Model, and the Rutherford Model replaced by the Bohr Model. While the Plum Pudding Model was an improvement over its predecessors, the Rutherford Model better explained the data than the Plum Pudding Model, and the Bohr Model ultimately improved upon the Rutherford Model. That's a bit that tends to get overlooked when people harp on how 'science changes'. The changes are not whimsical or random, they are made because the new explanation improves upon the prior model, typically in a way that hits much of the same explanations and expands upon them as the data dictates.

 

[Able Seacat]

I wouldn't say I have faith in science, I would say I trust science. I wouldn't say I believe in evolution, I would say I accept evolution.

I guess peoples definitions vary. It is also impractical to think in 'absolutes'.

 

[mechashiva77]

Not trying to censor your discussion and it's totally your choice, but don't you think this would be better in Religion and Politics?

 

[Brandon237]

Science isn't about 100% certainty. Unless you have 100% of the relevant knowledge about a system, can measure it to 100% accuracy and have a machine powerful enough to process what you measure, you can never claim 100% certainty. But you can get very, very, very close. Through constant revision, testing, peer review, clear and reproducible methodology and a massive bulk of cross-referencing and comparisons with related fields of science, you can get to a point where something is a "De Facto" certainty. It is "Faith" in the sense that you have a strong certainty that something backed by a massive, practical, cross-checked and reproducible set of evidence is true. Technology and medicine working as they do is practical evidence that our understanding of the universe at the levels relevant to make and innovate such things is very very good.
But still not 100% if you want to be pedantic

 

[Hoplon]

Science doesn't require you to believe, just have reproduce-able results.

 

[Esotera]

Well duh. Science doesn't aim to say that something is definitely true, just the probability that something is true. A lot of the time that is over 99%, which is close enough to something being true for us to assume that it is.

Did they actually do a whole episode on this? It doesn't seem to have much to do with gaming...

 

[Zantos]

Science is about being able to understand a concept with enough accuracy to be able to use it. There is always going to be some small difference between theoretical prediction that will be made smaller when the next generation of understanding comes along, but there is no faith involved, just an understanding of the tolerance at which you're working to.

Take for instance, Newtonian mechanics. There were plenty of things wrong with Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity had to come in to mop that up, but at the end of the day a civil engineer can still use those outdated Newtonian theories to build a bridge, and that bridge will be perfectly fine to use providing no one tries to cross it at velocities approaching c.

Essentially you're missing what science does, there is no such thing as a "This is how it works so sit down and shut up" theory. A scientist will develop a model that agrees with a physical phenomenon to a degree of accuracy that allows us to take advantage of it either in technology or in other research. Only the very deluded will tell you that's exactly how it works, only that they have developed a theory that agrees well enough with experiment to be of use.

 

[thesilentman]

I know mentioning Extra Credits here is somewhat taboo, but I am not so much interested in them as much as the can of worms they just inadvertently opened. In their recent two videos they pointed out that some of science's roots were grounded in belief, because we are dealing with things we cannot prove (however likely they may be). This started a discussion that caused a lot of people to become rather defensive and upset. They recently made their closing statement on the argument and I have to say I agree with them.
Science is still based on evidence, it just so happens the evidence we currently have for any given topic could be wrong, we might not be seeing the whole picture or the limitation of us being human is whats causing us to error (in other words we will never know the answer). Because of all that we have to take some degree of faith into it to make many of our theories work at all. I just think people are frightened at the idea that science might not be entierly infallible, even though it's usually not a big deal when our facts turn out to be wrong. After all, if we knew everything, we wouldn't learn anything.

What do you guys think?

Well, if you're going to advocate a theory, it has to be something you believe in, right? You have faith there, so you'll continue to advocate it. And as you believe in it, you'll defend it and hope to prove it.

OP, are you sure that Extra Credits wasn't talking about validating scientific theories? Because that's where THIS faith would apply.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Well duh. Science doesn't aim to say that something is definitely true, just the probability that something is true. A lot of the time that is over 99%, which is close enough to something being true for us to assume that it is.

Did they actually do a whole episode on this? It doesn't seem to have much to do with gaming...

The episode he's talking about was the second part of a discussion on how to handle religion in games.

 

[Vegosiux]

Take for instance, Newtonian mechanics. There were plenty of things wrong with Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity had to come in to mop that up, but at the end of the day a civil engineer can still use those outdated Newtonian theories to build a bridge, and that bridge will be perfectly fine to use providing no one tries to cross it at velocities approaching c.

Not exactly "wrong", as much as Newtonian physics simply not being something that works across the universe all the time - on the classical scale, with relatively low velocities and large masses, Newton is accurate. The quantum level and the relativistic level, however, need different tackling, but even in quantum mechanics and relativity, Newtonian physics have their place as one of the building blocks of the theories, even if they're not nearly as significant as building blocks as they are in everyday life.

Essentially you're missing what science does, there is no such thing as a "This is how it works so sit down and shut up" theory. A scientist will develop a model that agrees with a physical phenomenon to a degree of accuracy that allows us to take advantage of it either in technology or in other research. Only the very deluded will tell you that's exactly how it works, only that they have developed a theory that agrees well enough with experiment to be of use.

Yeah, exactly. Actually, science works because it always tries it damnest to shoot down its own hypotheses. So you have a hypothesis that could explain a phenomenon? First what you have to do is try to nuke it from orbit with whatever you can, throw everything and the kitchen sink at it, and if in the end it still stands, you can say, "Well, we can say with reasonable certainty that this is actually how it works".

Reproducible, verifiable and falsifiable results are what science strives for when trying to understand and explain.

Captcha: Rent-a-swag.
Son, I am disappoint. I had such high hopes for you, captcha...

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Essentially you're missing what science does, there is no such thing as a "This is how it works so sit down and shut up" theory. A scientist will develop a model that agrees with a physical phenomenon to a degree of accuracy that allows us to take advantage of it either in technology or in other research. Only the very deluded will tell you that's exactly how it works, only that they have developed a theory that agrees well enough with experiment to be of use.

Exactly. Science is a method. Theories are TOOLS. Just tools. They are not meant to answer everything they are meant to be useful in explaining phenomenon to a degree of accuracy that helps us in the modern world. Does it take faith for the lumberjack to raise the axe? Does it take faith to use a theory to produce a useful product? No. Because were you to bring the lumberjack a chainsaw he would drop his axe in a moment. It has NO value beyond its use as a tool. If a superior tool comes along the old tool is discarded in moments.

Faith is a loaded word because it HEAVILY implies emotional attatchment and "Hope" that a thing is true. I dont "Hope" the theory of evolution is correct. I couldnt care less. I WANT it to help me produce something useful because my aim is producing something useful, not having a perfect theory. As long as it does that i dont care if it gets shot down tomorrow. Its a useful tool for the time being and were you to give me a better tool i wouldnt pause for breath as i stamped evolution into the floor and took up your new one. As long as it helped me produce useful things better.

 

[Eddie the head]

How do you define faith? I always defined it as "belief that is not based on proof." Under that definition no, no it's not. But if you define it as "confidence or trust in a person or thing" yeah I guess. In any case I think it was a poor choice of words due mostly to the fact that it has heavy religious connotation to it.

It's like if call "Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman" propaganda for science. It's not incorrect, but propaganda has such a heavy negative connotation behind it that it doesn't get the point across well. So in the end a poor choice of words, but technically correct.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Well, if you're going to advocate a theory, it has to be something you believe in, right? You have faith there, so you'll continue to advocate it. And as you believe in it, you'll defend it and hope to prove it.

OP, are you sure that Extra Credits wasn't talking about validating scientific theories? Because that's where THIS faith would apply.

A scientist should never "Hope" to prove their theory. The implication is they draw a conclusion THEN attempt to find evidence. This is not so. A scientist looks at evidence then draws a conclusion. There should never be a point where you need to "hope" evidence comes up to prove you right because you should have enough evidence already to show you are right. Further evidence to cement this theory is good on the basis that it makes all works you produce from more sound.

A scientist should never be emotionally invested in their theory. Advocating a theory on faith is... pointless. You advocate it based on evidence. You dont believe a theory. You use it. You cant believe an axe. They are both tools in creating something useful. If it has practical use its a good theory. If another theory has MORE practical use its a better theory. You dont have faith in an axe. I dont have faith in a theory. A tool either works or it does not.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

How do you define faith? I always defined it as "belief that is not based on proof." Under that definition no, no it's not. But if you define it as "confidence or trust in a person or thing" yeah I guess. In any case I think it was a poor choice of words due mostly to the fact that it has heavy religious connotation to it.

It's like if call "Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman" propaganda for science. It's no incorrect, but propaganda has such a heavy negative connotation behind it that it doesn't get the point across well. So in the end a poor choice of words, but technically correct.

That's just what I was thinking, a bit of a failure to communicate.

 

[Vegosiux]

If another theory has MORE practical use its a better theory. You dont have faith in an axe. I dont have faith in a theory. A tool either works or it does not.

Well, a better tool coming along doesn't always invalidate the old one. You don't need a chainsaw to chop down a small sapling, just like you don't need quantum mechanics to explain how a car moves on a road.

For the frontier lumberjacking, of course I'd still use a chainsaw tho.

 

[TheIronRuler]

That's correct. Science does demand a certain amount of faith. You build theories, equations and predictions based on evidence and previously proven theories, equations and predictions. It requires some faith, to believe that you have indeed found a way to encapsulate the unknown into an equation and finally grasp how it works in your mind, nomatter how different it is from reality itself. It is the way you can understand it. Your faith in structures that allow you to understand the natural world is your faith in science. Have faith, my son, for you will surely pass the physics exam. You only have to pray for the photon to encounter an electron, and thus-

- oh, where was I?]

Captcha: hocus pocus - a very neat Kurt Vonnegurt Jr. book.

 

[Vhite]

Science is based on experiments and theories in which you can choose to trust because its a best method we have.

Einstein, for example, didn't want to believe in quantum mechanics despite many experiments proving them correct. While this was irrational, he knew that experiments can be wrong and theories can be modified and so he tried everything to disprove them. He failed.

Science doesn't require you to believe, just have reproduce-able results.

Still, if you gonna build a bridge, you have to believe that laws that hold it together and worked 1 000 000 times before will work for a 1 000 001st time as well. It's not much to ask but it is there.