Science is based on faith?

[someonehairy-ish]

I've always thought that the main difference between science and religion is this:

Science updates its beliefs whenever new evidence appears. Religion denies new evidence in order to preserve its beliefs.

[sub]I don't like religion very much, as a general rule.[/sub]

 

[Dagda Mor]

For people who are confused about what, exactly, EC said, it's that all reasoning is based on axioms which cannot be proven, but we believe to be true. One specific example of faith in science that they used was Postulate 5.

 

[Dead Seerius]

It's true, of course, that some faith is needed to fill in the gaps where scientists cannot present evidence.

The thing is that science isn't trying to make up wild explanations for things they can't prove and not allowing anyone else to say anything differently, which is why most people don't make a big deal about it.

And FTR, this is coming from a Catholic. I'm not trying to knock religions or anything.

 

[Redingold]

I feel like it might be appropriate to post a link to their video, so people can actually see their arguments.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/god-does-not-play-dice

 

[HardkorSB]

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?

Science is changed and/or updated with every new invention and discovery.
Faith when it comes to science is a different thing than when it comes to religion.
If I discover A and B, and then use A and B to discover C and D, I can have the belief that there might be an E based on my previous discoveries and numerous tests using A, B, C and D and every other thing that might help with the possible future discovery of E (that's science).
However, assuming that Q exists and we will never be able to do certain things because of Q and that we should/shouldn't do certain things because of Q without even trying to prove/disprove Q, as well as answering any question you don't know the answer to with Q because it makes you feel better, that's another story (that's religion).

I hope that it makes sense

 

[BrotherRool]

It's technically true, but in a way we'd all accept. We all assume we're functioning humans with working senses and that our pattern isn't suddenly going to stop repeating. But Ec didn't handle it great, this video I agree with more
http://blip.tv/sf-debris-opinionated-reviews/voy-sacred-ground-review-6464448

Science ends where faith starts. The big difference is that having the laws of gravity proved wrong is no biggy, which is different for faith. They're both important(maybe) to find the truth, but they can only look at different parts and with different methods and the faith required to support the science methods is the same as is required to be a functioning human being in many ways.

Mathematicians on the other hand require no faith =D

 

[Rednog]

I saw the episode and I had to rub my temples for a good 5 minutes to just get the stupid out. I've noticed that when it comes to "debates" EC tries too hard to take this moderate stance and by doing so they shoot their argument in the foot. They are using the definition of "faith" in the most ludicrously broad sense. And the problem with this is they are trying to make parallels but at the same time avoiding any concrete definition. This ends up being the biggest downfall of the argument because while you can argue that sure you can maybe apply this word in the broadest sense, it isn't really the best fitting word because the ideas/concepts/practice behind the two ends of the spectrum are completely different.

It's like me saying oh look people of religion practice their faith, and people of science practice science....so they're equal right?

Nope.

I don't know, in the end I really think it's kind of a skeevy argument. I mean when they go "oh yea we have a team that is really diverse in world views....James is an agnostic." Ok great...that's 1 view out of a full spectrum of people's views on the whole "faith" thing. I have a feeling the team is leaning towards the belief in faith aspect. To me it makes the their whole argument feel akin to creationism trying to crowbar itself into real science by playing around with words.

 

[TAdamson]

Yeah, I wanted to slap extra credits for this.

Science isn't based on faith. It's completely the opposite. Science is based on scepticism. It's a process of elimination where you test hypotheses one by one and reject the ones that fail. You keep doing this until you end up with the one you cannot reject that best explains the phenomena that you are observing.

Really what scientists have "faith" in is that the peer review process works.

 

[Souplex]

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.

 

[Da Orky Man]

I think I have a suitable quote for this:

'Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it would stop.'

 

[Darken12]

As a scientist, I have to agree with EC. Science is based on faith because life is based on faith. Whoever scoffs at fate has no idea how the human mind works. In science, we take things on faith and then we test them to see if we're right. If we're right, our faith on those things has been confirmed. If we're wrong, we have to find something else to take on faith and test. That's what they mean when they say that in science, faith is the means, not the end.

That's the difference between science and religion. Science questions the things it takes on faith constantly, and keeps questioning and testing over and over again. In religion, questioning your faith is a big no-no.

 

[Arakasi]

Faith is belief based upon no evidence.
Science involves action based upon evidence.
I find it very difficult to say I believe anything, because I know that anything that can be believed in can one day be proven false, so I simply say that X is what I think at the time.

 

[Nimbus]

My only problem with the videos is that they are saying assumptions and beliefs are the exact same thing, to the point where they use the words interchangeably. I really don't see this as the case.

 

[Joccaren]

I just think people are frightened at the idea that science might not be entierly infallible

Anybody like this does not know science. Science isn't faith based, but neither is it infallible. If you're researching something in science, be prepared for something you thought you knew to turn out false - its just the way things are. We don't understand things enough to be able to say "This is definitely True", and we never will.

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.

You were going well up until here. This is false. Evolution is like Gravity: It is real. What the Theory of Evolution is, is like the theory of Gravity - it doesn't say "Gravity Might exist" or "Evolution Might exist", it says "Gravity exists, and this is how it might work" or "Evolution exists, and this is how it might work".
Anything based on observation can be assumed to be 100% true, as we're not going to go into the whole philosophy side of things like the brain in the jar as they are utterly irrelevant to how this universe works. We see creatures slowly change over several generations, including, most prominently, humans, as well as bacteria doing the same thing within minutes. We know that Evolution exists. How it works is what we have to question.

OT: Science is not based on faith. It is based on evidence and scrutiny. You don't have faith that your theories are true, you have faith that they aren't, and that you don't know enough to make the perfect theory, and that is why people keep testing theories and try to break them, then allow them to be broken when some completely different test - sometimes from a different field of science - yields a result that defies your theories, but you doubt that result as well and it must be pretty much exactly repeatable if someone else were to do the experiment with the same set up.
There is no faith in this. You don't believe in your results and trust them to work, unless its out of a sense of pride, but you acknowledge always that they have a high chance of being wrong. Science is not based on faith, its based on evidence, most of which is based off observation. Science is as based off faith as the concept that I'm looking at my PC screen is [I AM looking at my PC screen, so from my perspective this is 100% true] - i.e: its not.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

This seems like a more polite version of Tim Minchin's "Storm".. so everyone just watch storm and well mark science down for a win


most relevant quote from the poem:

"You're so sure of your position
But you're just closed-minded.
I think you'll find that your faith in science and tests
is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist"
"Wow, that's a good point, let me think for a bit;
Oh wait, my mistake, That's absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation
so that belief can be preserved
If you show me that, say, Homeopathy works,
then I will change my mind,
I'll spin on a fucking dime,
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
but I will run through the streets yelling,
"It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory! And while its memory
of a long lost drop of onion juice seems infinite
it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!'
You show me that it works and how it works
and when I've recovered from the shock,
I will take a compass and carve 'fancy that'
on the side of my cock."

 

[Zipa]

Dawkings has it covered.

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

tldr version, Faith is belief not based on any evidence, science is based on evidence which is independently tested and verified and peer reviewed by other scientists to prove it correct. If a scientific theory is proved incorrect then it is changed to reflect the evidence.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for succinctly saying everything that I could possibly want to contribute on this matter.

I've tried explaining to people that everything comes down to "this is what I choose to think" and I usually get nasty responses, from theists and atheists.

 

[Raine_sage]

I don't know I took it not so much as scientists having faith (though I might have misunderstood their position on this) as ordinary people having faith in scientists.

Basically the scientific process in a nutshell is "I observed something happen to something else. I then conducted an experiment trying to figure out why the thing I saw happened the way it did. I meticulously recorded my experiment so other people can do it and see if they can get the same result. If other people get the same result I know my experiment was done correctly and that its results are valid."
This is why scientific peer review is so important. Human error is a very real thing because no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. That said I don't have the means or the knowledge to test another person's results. I cannot read about something in the news and go "Hm, I'm not entirely sure about his method." And attempt to dupilcate the experiment because I lack the equipment and thousands of dollars in funding. Since I cannot personally observe the experiment and its results I must take on faith the scientific community's word that the experiment was conducted properly and the results are valid.

Normally this is pretty easy to do. I like scientists, I like to think they know what they're doing better than I do. However that faith in the scientific method wavers in cases where a scientist or a doctor or some other respected professional might have some reason to...skew their results one way or another. Which has happened because once again scientists are human and we all make mistakes. This is why heavily politicized scientific topics meet so much resistance among some people. I myself have a little trouble believing new "groundbreaking" scientific evidence concerning diet because for the past ten years it seems like nobody has been able to decide if milk is actually good for me or not.

 

[Syntax Error]

Science is based on faith. Faith that you know your skills, proofs, data and documentation are correct. Faith does not necessarily equate to religion. Keep that in mind.