Science is based on faith?

May 29, 2011
1,179
0
0
Saxnot said:
Use_Imagination_here said:
Saxnot said:
Use_Imagination_here said:
I'm not saying definitely, I'm not even saying probably, I'm just making a (in my view) necessary assumption. My assumption could be wrong but it's necessary.

Also you spelled presumptuous wrong.
Why is it necessary?
I already said this. Because If you don't make this assumption you can't make definite statements about anything. If you want my argument it's in my previous posts.

It's only necessary in my OPINION. This isn't fact. In my opinion it is necessary to be able to make definite statements about reality. If your opinion is that we don't need to be able to make definite statements about reality then that's YOUR opinion, and arguing about it would be like arguing that a certain brand of music is better because you like it better. It's pointless. Neither of us are going to gain anything.
Well, we might gain a better understanding of each others position. But i get what you mean. If that's your philosophical position, i understand totally. I'm not saying your position is invalid or strange, i'm trying to debate you in order to find out why you think what you think and how that applies to my ideas about the world. That does not mean you're wrong.
It's my philosophical position because I feel it makes it easier to define the nature of claims. And also I feel that the possibility of everything at once would unnecessarily complicate several of the more existential fields of philosophy.
 

The_Darkness

New member
Nov 8, 2010
546
0
0
Before I start, two things.
One: This is going to be my last post on the subject. No offence, but I don't want to still be debating this in three days time...
Two: Let's just step outside of the debate for a moment. Out of curiosity, what would it mean for you if it was logically proven that Science requires faith?

To keep things fair, I'll turn this question around and use it on myself: What would it mean for me if I was shown logical proof that Science does not need faith? Well, it does depend on how such a thing was demonstrated. If it was merely a case of my mixing up some definitions - a case of finicky language - then I'd be disappointed because I'd have been in the wrong. I'd try to learn from the mistake - I'm only human - but the disappointment would be there nonetheless.
On the other hand, if it wasn't merely a case of finicky definitions and wording, but that Science, as I understand it, requires absolutely no faith - that everything it states can be shown to be 'true' (for want of a better phrasing) - I'd be fascinated. No really - to find such an absolute fact would be amazing.

Vegosiux said:
The_Darkness said:
The above was the argument. Please, prove to me that the universe isn't frozen in time, that my description above is demonstrably false. Because otherwise you are taking the existence of time on faith.
The above was a statement. An argument would be making a case for that statement. Actually, I think you and I both know that.
Fine. It's a statement, not an argument. I used the wrong word. That doesn't change the fact that it is impossible to prove the statement wrong, and that by extension, time is an assumption (since I just described a perfectly valid model of the universe in which time doesn't exist). In any case, this gets absorbed into the axioms, which I discuss below.

Regarding the infinite series of "Why?" in my earlier post - yes, you're right, in most cases, there will be questions that we can investigate and find answers for, and to stop asking questions then would be a mistake. But then, there will also be questions that we will never find an answer for. "How do we know time exists?" is one of them. As are: "How do we know there is an objective reality? How do we know that the Universe obeys strict laws? How do I know I exist?" Because to investigate anything, you have to assume that these things are true. (I think we're in agreement on this point - you're referring to them as axioms, I'm referring to them as assumptions.)

[Science is] a tool with which we seek to understand the universe.
Okay. So you view Science as constructing an internally consistent model to match our observations of the Universe. Am I right? And the basis of this model are the axioms above. And because these axioms are within the model, not the Universe, they are themselves a tool, not assumptions, and certainly not factual statements.

In short, in your view Scientists are saying "Let's see if we can build a model that includes objective reality, time, causality and strict laws that also matches what we observe within the Universe."
(This is important, because the existence of Faith is more prominent in some alternate interpretations of Science.)

...

So now I have a question:
Do you have faith in the Scientific Method? Do you trust it?
I don't care that it's a justified faith, justified by millennia of active progress, that doesn't change the fact that there is still a measure of faith. Torrasque's post, the one that I originally responded to, mentioned the 99.9999% (or more) certainty. Faith accounts for the remaining 0.00...001%. It may be tiny, but it's there. For all we know, God could have spent the last 3000 years setting up every observed event to fit with the Scientific Method. You and I both believe otherwise - but there's the catch. Belief. We can't know for sure.

And you may answer yes to the above question, but even so, that doesn't mean that Science as a whole requires faith. Does it?

Well, let's go deeper. (Inception-Bwong)

Does the Scientific Method require faith to work?
The method can be summed up in three parts:
1) Observation
2) Creation or modification of a Scientific Model
3) Prediction

Point 2 is arguably removed from the universe, and is where the axioms come into play. Let's discard it as requiring no Faith.
That leaves 1 & 3. Observation and prediction.

1) Observation is an action, but it is passive (ignoring high level quantum for now). I can get into the question of whether you are assuming anything by making an observation - primarily I'd be arguing that you have to assume the existence of an observer before you can make an observation - but that argument gets self-referential very quickly, so I'm avoiding it.

3) Prediction is a necessary part of the Scientific Method. Without it, we can't test the validity of any Scientific Models that we have constructed. However, in making a prediction, you are placing faith in your model. At the very least, you are placing faith in the idea that by testing your prediction, testing your model, you will get something useful. And by that, to get back to my earlier point, you are placing faith in the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method wouldn't work if people didn't use it. People use the method because they trust it. But in that trust is a (tiny) act of faith.
Science even acknowledges this detail. Any Scientific Theory could be overturned if new evidence came to light. Gravity, Quantum, Cosmology (actually, it's happening all the time in Cosmology...), even Thermodynamics - although Thermodynamics is an interesting one because of how closely it is tied to Statistics. Newtonian Physics was overturned, but remains accurate enough for day to day usage.
All this is because of that one little bit of faith, and because Science is willing to be sceptical in how that little bit of faith is applied.

And I'm done. If you do write a response to this - and please do - then I will add a few small closing comments, responding to anything you've brought up. Otherwise, thank-you. You've given me some ideas to think about and mull over, and forced me to shore up some areas of my own interpretation of Science (note - mine isn't the Copenhagen one).
 

Jamous

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,941
0
0
Technically it's correct as induction doesn't work. In short; you can't actually prove cause and effect and so cannot make predictions for the future based on past events, which is exactly what science does. Science has faith that a few things hold up almost no matter what; cause and effect, maths etc. Therefore Science is based on faith. However it's still a ridiculously loaded statement; best explained here. First couple of minutes and 5.20. Good stuff.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
Mimsofthedawg said:
(see BOTH evolution and Creation... both are full of indescrepencies, and neither person from either side of the debate is willing to give the other room to explain themselves. It's classic "faith wars").
If you think this you haven't examined the evidence for both cases. Scientific proof is necessarily devoid of discrepancy, if there is discrepancy in evidence the theory is discarded or revised.

Creationism begins and ends by trying to prove something very specific and does it by looking for evidence that seems to corroborate this position.

Evolution is the culmination of 204 years of tens of thousands of observations by some of the most brilliant people who have ever lived. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution, there are literally many thousands of tons of fossils numbering in the billions. The entire field of science called genetics is based entirely on the "theory" of evolution. Most modern medical treatments would fail if evolution was incorrect, ALL treatments regarding microbes would fail if they were based on an incorrect theory of evolution.

Let me put this another way, we've already built a house on this foundation that is evolution and it's not collapsing, if evolution were false and full of "indescrepencies" it would have collapsed over 80 years ago. In science we're nine steps ahead of evolution, we're already taking our first steps off the bridge we crossed where evolution served as a keystone. Within 70 years scientists will be able to create life, like "God", in a laboratory, within 140 a child will be able to create life, like "God", in his backyard with a kit he bought from a toy store. Creationism is just a death rattle issued by a crumbling orthodoxy 90 years too late to matter.
 

Slash Joel

New member
Apr 7, 2011
147
0
0
Religion was the first science or the first we know of. It gave a hypothesis on the world around us through the methods available to the human race at the time. We continue to do this to this day just in a little more complex method.


So to call them separate things is a little stupid.
 

Frotality

New member
Oct 25, 2010
982
0
0
(i come into this with the croshaw philosophy of not influencing my opinion by watching the video in question)

well of course science has its roots in faith, they are both ways in which we try to understand the universe, and in times gone by the two were not so distinct. humans looked at rain and said' "well it must be caused by the rain god". they had no means to prove otherwise, so at the time the explanation was perfectly valid; it satisfied curiosity and was believable enough when you dont know any better. but humans are inquisitive: over time they start to think more and more about this rain god, what he looks like, how he acts, what he thinks about, why he does what he does... this is a scientific way of thinking...

...but some people just lose sight of WHY they are asking those questions and prefer to go on creating their own personal fantasy based on their thoughts rather than what they observe. they regale their children with stories of the rain god, perhaps intending them to be only stories, but children hinge on these words regardless of intent. when they grow up, the fantastical rain god they were told about as kids becomes their instinctual perception of him, what they fall back on whenever questions arise. so when someone with a different idea comes by and says, "hey, it only rains when the clouds are thick and afterwards they disappear, maybe their is no rain god and its just clouds doing what they do" there is already a whole community of faithful worshippers opposed to that idea, that grew up on a long, rich, successful history of worshipping the rain god. they feel their belief is threatened, more importantly they feel their security in knowing when and why there are floods and draughts being threatened, so they instinctively do one of two things: adapt their belief to fit the new data (the rain god made the clouds! what a clever little god!), or more commonly they vilify whoever believes the new idea. when that happens, a wedge is driven between the community, and as humans always do, both sides begin to enhance the differences between "us and them", both in action and in thought, creating artificial barriers to strengthen the bond between fellow believers and weaken their bond to non-believers. in this, the rain god is enhanced from an actual belief to a fact of the universe; he is no longer the best explanation at the time, he becomes fact and reality must be bent to satisfy that fact. science, in turn, learns the danger of sticking to one theory to zealously, and advances into something we know today; detached, logical, with a strict method and no room for error.

TL;DR faith is taking the simple and making it complicated with your own beliefs. science is taking the complicated and trying to make it simple with logic and reason. they both have their roots in the simple.
 

ThisGuyLikesNoTacos

New member
Dec 7, 2012
78
0
0
Saying that "X is based on faith" sounds a little extreme to me. Not even Christianity is based on faith, but at the events which happen in the (Christian) bible. So why would science be?

Does faith have a place in science's roots? Maybe, it really just depends on how you define faith.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
There is a difference between faith and logic. You can get far by applying logic to the world and assuming something will react or act in a certain way because something else does.

The anatomist Galen assumed our bottom jaws were split like a lot of mammals because he was prevented from dissecting humans. He was wrong but was later corrected with further exploration.

Logic and assumption is all we can apply to things we cannot grasp hold of yet. Like the assumption there will be life on Europa. That's not faith that's logic worked out from the scientific data we have access too. It may be wrong but we will see when we get there and if it's wrong we will correct our knowledge.

Faith has nothing to do with science. Logic and extrapolation of data does. In fact you might even say they are opposites as you could argue true faith is believing in something that has no grounding or reason to be true.

'How do we know he will stand up for us.'
'We will just have to have faith'

Whereas having logical assumptions, extrapolations and predictions from data requires no faith at all. Because you have some sort of reasoning that you will be correct.

'How do we know he will stand up for us'
'Because he has done it before in similar circumstances'
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,910
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
People who think that science requires 'faith' in the same way that religion does need to get the fuck off my internet.

Now.

Go on, piss off. Begone. Away with you. I don't care where you go, just go.
 

Syntax Error

New member
Sep 7, 2008
2,323
0
0
Short answer, it is. Science is merely a collection of beliefs that is held to be true (through rigorous evidence gathering and peer review)... Until something better comes along. There's a reason why the LHC over at CERN is quite a big deal: its results could potentially rewrite the laws of physics as it is currently known: There was an incident were a particle was faster than the speed of light, also known as the Universe's Max Speed Limit. There was much hubbub about it, because that would mean to rewrite everything that's known about the world and the known universe up until that point. They attributed it to external factors causing anomalies to the otherwise controlled environment.
 

LotusPhi

New member
Jan 3, 2013
11
0
0
It is important to remember that most, if not all, our interaction with the world is based on faith. We believe water is H2O because this is as far as we can see, or that god created us because.. because, or that right now we are typing in electronics rather than dreaming about it, or even that our family loves us and we love them. Faith, as well as lack of faith, is based on believing. The truth is that nothing can be 100% proven because we cannot prove our perspective and judgement are 100% true. Life is, within itself, an uncertainty. This is what yield religion, as this is what yielded science. Human beings need some sort of existential comfort.
 

DataSnake

New member
Aug 5, 2009
467
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Science assumes an answer and attempts to prove it.
Close. Technically, science assumes a null hypothesis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis] and attempts to disprove it.

EDIT: Here's a pair of quick examples:

Idea: water is flammable
Null hypothesis: water is not flammable
Experiment: attempt to set water on fire
Result: the water does not burn. This is not evidence against the null hypothesis, so we fail to reject the null.

Idea: gasoline is flammable
Null hypothesis: gasoline is not flammable
Experiment: attempt to set gasoline on fire
Result: the gas burns. This is evidence against the null hypothesis, so we reject the null.
 

UltraXan

New member
Mar 1, 2011
288
0
0
Having seen a lot of atheist vs theist videos, I feel like I can contribute. Is Science based on faith? Yes and no. Yes, because no one can ever be 100% correct about anything related to nature. Things like math, yes, you CAN be 100% correct. That's where you get the phrase "number don't lie." Fact is, they don't because they can't, but that's something that was developed by intelligence. When it comes to observations about the natural world, no, you can't be completely correct. You can get close, but not completely. No, because when I say close, I mean REALLY fucking close. As in, 99.99999% correct. Sure, that last micron is based on faith, but it's so insignificant that it doesn't matter. Think of it this way. In math, if you divide a number by infinity, you say it's 0. Is it 0? No, it's not, but it's such a tiny, microscopic decimal that we just say it's 0. That's why most people disagree when other say that science is based on faith. It's because the amount of faith needed is so unimportant, it's just disregarded. I fall into the latter category, though I do understand that even a tiny amount requires faith. Still infinitely better than having 100% faith in something you can't actually verify...
 

Saxnot

New member
Mar 1, 2010
212
0
0
matthew_lane said:
Saxnot said:
That actually illustrates my main point very well. The idea of creation, being unfalsifiable, cannot be effectively debated by pointing out lots of mistakes in holy books.
You are quite right, that pointting out mistakes in the bible does not show that creation is unfalsifiable. Pointing out mistakes in the bible is just fun. What demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of creation is that fact that it cannot be falsified.

Now since it seem that you don't appear to know what unfalsifiable means, i'll give you the definition

"not capable of being proved false"

So in closing on you unfalsifiability statement, one must conclude that creation is unfalsifiable, since there are no means by which the theory can be tested, primarilly because creation is a work of fiction & involves magic as the base state of change. Its kind of like how you can't prove Harry Potter is not real, if every time you supply evidence to prove the conclusion wrong i say "ahhh, but magic."

Magic does not exist: It is the providence of fairy tales, D&D, and a time sink hobby the represents a great waste of money based around a false economy of worth, literally called magic.
Yes. That is the definiton of unfalsifiable. Now read what i said again. Religion cannot be effectively debated in terms of proof because it cannot be falsified.

You seem to think that it follows from there that i'm christian and attempting to show how science is just like religion. That is not what i'm saying. This is what i'm saying. Now pay attention.

It is not useful or relevant to discuss religion or attempt to disprove religion by pointing out factual innacuracies in holy books. That is not what is important about them to the people who believe in them. Holy books are not inside the realm of science because much of their contents (the important parts) cannot be falsified. To discuss them or attempt to prove or disprove them using the terms of science is missing the essence of religious faith and why people believe spectacularly.

That is what i am saying. No more, no less. If you disagree, or have any other relevant reply, i'd be glad to discuss it with you. Otherwise, good day to you sir.
 

wolfyrik

New member
Jun 18, 2012
131
0
0
Souplex said:
Unless you do the studies/experiments yourself, you're taking someone else's word for it on the results.
That's taking it on faith.
Not really, because you can test for yourself. And of course no rational human being will just accept information without investigating. Especially a scientist. Peer review exists for a reason. When we have informaiton with no decent, independent verification we immediate are skeptical first. This is how most people avoid scams like scientology. If your claim was correct, we'd all be scientologists, as we'd have seen their claims, then just accepted them. We'd all have homeopathy kits and be drinking our own urine, we'd all be obsessed with anti-oxidents... You get the idea.

When we (people in general) are told something, there are many steps that we take, often sub-consciously, before we accept what it as fact. It's when we fail to use our rational minds that we find ourselves being duped, or in too many cases, never realise.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
Why are you still debating something that has been explained a dozen times before over a hundred posts ago?