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).