Asita said:
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.
Solipsism is not an inherently incorrect worldview though. The problem with it is that it is plausible (but unprovable either way), but accepting it renders meaningful discussion about the nature of reality impossible.
Once you start to question whether there is even such a thing as a 'reality' that has a consistent, testable set of rules, then taking that to it's logical conclusion would mean it's pointless trying to figure anything at all out about the world because it could all change without warning.
This does incidentally point to the basic assumption necessary for science to be useful though. If there is any truth to the notion that science is in any way based on 'faith', then it would be that it requires that there exists something which has consistent, predictable properties which can be measured reliably.
What use would science be if it could not make predictions after all, because the 'reality' it was describing kept changing?
It doesn't matter what the system is, as long as it has some consistency to it. You could still use the scientific method on something which would otherwise be termed 'magic', as long as it has consistent rules. But it's difficult to do anything meaningful in a scientific sense with something that does not appear to obey any rules whatsoever.
(Consider for instance a hypothetical case of telekinesis being possible, but only if all the people observing it believe it to be possible. That has predictable rules, but it also induces a situation in which disbelief would alter the results of an experiment. It would be challenging indeed to set up an experiment where the results depended on whether the experimenter believed an outcome was possible or not, but it still has enough of a logical basis that if something like this were the case, it could probably be studied scientifically - admittedly though, not without difficulty since you'd have to control for the beliefs of everyone taking part in the research, which would be the worst imaginable form of headache.)
Ah, never mind. The examples needed to point out the assumptions necessary for science to be invalid are very contrived.
There ARE assumptions involved, and in this sense you could claim it to be based on 'faith', but this is not quite the usual meaning of the word 'faith'.
For that matter, you don't need 'faith' in the sense that you NEED to believe in something for it to work.
I can do maths just fine without necessarily accepting the arbitrary axioms it contains as being true.
I do however need to accept the relationship between the axioms involved, and the remaining mathematics that depends on those axioms.
Remove the axiom and you invalidate everything derived from it as well. But that still doesn't require that you can prove or disprove the validity of the axiom itself. - Faith implies believing something irrespective of whether there is evidence or not.
But there is no belief inherently involved with a mathematical axiom. Merely the acceptance that what is derived from one cannot be correct without it being true.
It may be worth pointing out though that while science doesn't require faith in the religions sense, many of the things I've heard said by various scientists can be interpreted as 'faith' in something to do with science.
For instance, the statement that 'a theory should be beautiful' (which actually usually means it should be mathematically simple) is a statement of faith more so than science.
There is nothing implicit about either reality or the scientific study of it that would require it to be 'simple'. So holding the belief that this should be the case is a form of 'faith', even if the science itself is not. (ignoring the wider definition of 'faith' being thrown about so far.)
I consider Occam's razor to be largely a statement of faith when you think about it... But that's neither here nor there.