Science is based on faith?

[dvd_72]

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'.

Thank you for that wonderful clarification. This is an issue laymen are very often confused by and you've explained it in a very elegant way!

While science is based on faith on a very fundamental level I apreciate that almost everything beyond those basic assumptions relies on evidence and repeatability. A single or even a small number of observations aren't enough to say anything conclusivly. What's more, when something enhances our scope of observation science will adjust its views and formulas to match, unlike many faiths which will continue to maintain their views an words in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I guess what I'm trying very inexpertly to say is that while science is based on a fundamental level on faith, it is nothing like -A- faith. It relies on observable and testable phenomena to establish itself without relying on faith for the most part.

 

[Vigormortis]

Do not kid yourself. Science my be based in logic, but you have faith in science like Christians have faith in God.

Wrong.

We don't have faith in the science itself. We have "faith" that those teaching us the science aren't lying to us.

Faith only factors into science when you add human nature into the equation.

 

[Pebkio]

2b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Yeah, okay. Prove to me that what you can see with your eyes is reality and true. Prove to me that when you witness an event that you're seeing all the truths behind that event. Prove to me that all the tools we have for measuring things scientifically are all the tools we will ever have and that no new way of measuring will ever come along to give a new perspectives on old theories.

Of course not, I'm not really asking you to prove something so open-ended and future-centric. However, it IS absence of proof, yet we still have to believe that what we can observe is true. Ergo, even though we are able to refine our understanding of what is true, we still need some faith (by definition 2b-1) in our ability to observe the truth.

Is it practically moot... pretty much, yeah. Is it still a way to show how faith isn't entirely removed from science... pretty much, yeah.

Oh, and they didn't say that science is based on faith. Everyone who uses that phrase is misquoting EC.

 

[Pebkio]

Wrong.

We don't have faith in the science itself. We have "faith" that those teaching us the science aren't lying to us.

Faith only factors into science when you add human nature into the equation.

I didn't say "You, Vigor, believe..." did I? No, I was talking to LetalisK. Stop projecting onto my posts. If you feel I was addressing you, even though I wasn't, I think YOU'VE got a problem with YOU believing in science.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

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 essentially guided by three assumptions. These can never be proven, but are absolutely neccassary for learning literally anything about the world.
1: The universe exists
2: It is possible to learn about the universe
3: The data our senses deliver is at least sometimes accurate, and is caused by stimulus from the outside universe.
Beyond this there is no faith, and using this method science has gotten results (like the computer I am typing this on) so I will remain mindful of these assumptions but will go along with them for the purpose of learning.

 

[Snownine]

What is this Extra Credit you mention?

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Do not kid yourself. Science my be based in logic, but you have faith in science like Christians have faith in God.

Wrong.

We don't have faith in the science itself. We have "faith" that those teaching us the science aren't lying to us.

Faith only factors into science when you add human nature into the equation.

Science must make assumptions which cannot be proven. Whether these count as faith is a matter of semantics.
1: The universe exists
2: It is possible to learn things about the universe
3: Our senses are at least sometimes accurate, and relay information about the outside universe.
These can never be proven, yet are vital ot beggining science or any evidence based learning. We can never know whether what we see and observe through data is correct, and not changed by some unknown entity, or if there really is anything to observe out there, yet we must accept that evidence is a trustworthy means of determining things, which cannot be proven by evidence. As long as we are aware of these assumptions I see no problem with it.

 

[Ieyke]

This can be entirely summed up in one easy philosophical concept -
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - "I think, Therefore I am."

The fact that you think proves TO YOU that YOU exist.
No one else can prove to you that they exist.
You can't even prove to yourself that you look the way you do or are seeing what you're seeing, or are where you are.

The ONLY absolute facts that you have are that you think, and that you therefore exist in some form, or else you couldn't think.

Since science is not either of those two things, it is still based entirely upon the experiences that humans think about, and is therefore subject to all the theoretical pitfalls of veracity that all things outside of an individuals own mind are subject to.

You could be imagining gravity.
You could be imagining science.
You could be imagining scientists.
You could be imagining that you breath, that you eat, that you sleep, that you walk, that you talk.

Essentially, yes, science is based on faith.
But it is a faith derived from the most insanely and unimaginably complex series of consistent and super-coherent ideas ever to exist.
That unfathomable, almost certainly unfakeable degree of coherency is where we derive our suspicion that science and reality are almost certainly fact. That near-certainty is where we derive or "faith" in science.

 

[nifedj]

As others have alluded to, the way that the EC video tries to make parts of science fit the definition of "faith" requires quite a lot of twisting the definition. It's one thing to think that definitions are malleable, but using one word - faith - to describe a religious belief like the belief in an afterlife as well as a piece of scientific reasoning is a case of using one word to describe two clearly different things, which should be avoided. The scientific approach to things that are not known is what clearly separates it from faith. Faith encourages people to trust in things they can't know. Science relies on the opposite attitude, skepticism. The reason scientists "assume" that (for example) there are natural causes for the things that happen around us is not because they think they can prove something that they actually can't, but because such an assumption is both productive and true by any meaningful definition of the word "truth".

 

[Vigormortis]

Yeah, okay. Prove to me that what you can see with your eyes is reality and true. Prove to me that when you witness an event that you're seeing all the truths behind that event.

I thought we were talking about science, not philosophy.

Besides, science takes into account the subjective nature of observation. So I'm not seeing the point to your statements here.

Prove to me that all the tools we have for measuring things scientifically are all the tools we will ever have and that no new way of measuring will ever come along to give a new perspectives on old theories.

I'm sorry, but what? What does this have to do with the topic? You act as though science and technology advancing and evolving over time somehow makes everything we've discovered thus far as purely "faith based". I'm genuinely confused here.

Of course not, I'm not really asking you to prove something so open-ended and future-centric. However, it IS absence of proof, yet we still have to believe that what we can observe is true. Ergo, even though we are able to refine our understanding of what is true, we still need some faith (by definition 2b-1) in our ability to observe the truth.

We need faith to observe the truth? Really? Really now?

Is it practically moot... pretty much, yeah. Is it still a way to show how faith isn't entirely removed from science... pretty much, yeah.

Leaps of logic abound in this discussion.

Simply because someone assumes the answer to a question in science, doesn't mean they're taking the findings on "faith".

They assume what the answer might be, but they still perform experiments to prove, or disprove, those assumptions.

If it was done on "faith", any findings refuting the assumed answer would be ignored or altered to fit the original assumption.

Oh, and they didn't say that science is based on faith. Everyone who uses that phrase is misquoting EC.

I wasn't attempting to argue with EC. I was answering the OPs question, based on what he/she wrote. I'm sorry, is that no longer acceptable behavior around here? I thought that was the point of a forum.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Once again, I must insist that people stop confusing "faith" with "assumption". They are NOT the same thing.

 

[Overusedname]

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'.

What he said.

I guess I just went with a more likely theory that made more sense to me since I wasn't raised with much faith beyond basic belief in god. I don't even believe in that anymore.

I'll admit I've certainly had moments where I wished I could believe in heaven...

 

[90sgamer]

Science only has two beliefs. If you want to call it faith then so be it.
1. We and the universe exist.
2. Reality exists as we see it.

Incidentally, anyone who is not willing to admit he could be a potatoe has to concede to these two beliefs, so it's not a science-exclusive belief club.

 

[Jacco]

snip

Yeah, I was trying to be as simple as I could in my explanation and it came out poorly. But yes, I know they are indisputable. As others have stated more eloquently, there's a different between laws and theories and the definitions are somewhat complicated. In any case, you are correct and my post was worded badly. =P

 

[TheMyffic]

The old "fuzzy knowledge" argument: Nothing is 100% certain and so therefor poorly reasoned concepts such as religion has legitimacy. Believing something because it's falsifiable, has been tested(in a way that's reproducible) and peer reviewed is better than believing something based on faith.

Remember that with Science, if we aren't certain we about something yet we say so. Only religion claims 100% certainty.

 

[Vigormortis]

I didn't say "You, Vigor, believe..." did I? No, I was talking to LetalisK. Stop projecting onto my posts. If you feel I was addressing you, even though I wasn't, I think YOU'VE got a problem with YOU believing in science.

It's funny that you've been accusing others of being "zealots" when it appears you're one of the only people reacting with such fervor and anger.

Anyway, no. You weren't directly quoting me previously. But let me fill you in on something: You're posting on a forum on the internet. You're making public statements. As such, the "public" can read and respond to your comments and assertions.

I simply exorcized my rights to do so. I read your post, saw the points you made, and felt compelled to refute them. I knew you weren't addressing me. But you still posted your thoughts in a public forum. I simply responded.

That's how discussions work.

Though, I have to ask:
How does me assuming you were talking to me (though I wasn't) have anything to do with me "believing in science"?

Seriously, these leaps are astounding.

 

[Asita]

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.

Hence why myself and a few others noted it to be a loaded term (as opposed to an entirely inaccurate one) in discussions like this, especially considering that it's so often used in this context for the specific purpose of equating science to religion. It certainly doesn't help matters that the word 'faith' can literally be synonymous with 'religion', hence "the christian faith" and similar terms. It's like 'Tyrant'[footnote]At its basic level, the word tyrant simply means one who came to power through unconventional means, such as a coup. In this respect, one could call George Washington a tyrant and not be incorrect. However, the term has acquired additional connotations over the years that turn it into a far more negative statement, often entirely replacing the original meaning of the term with 'a harsh and/or cruel ruler who looks to his own interest rather than his subjects' or something similar. For better or worse, this latter definition is the one most people relate to, and with that in mind calling George Washington a tyrant would imply he carried those traits as well, making it a loaded term.[/footnote] and 'Propaganda'[footnote]The term itself could apply to any media designed to affect public opinion, as that is the most basic definition of 'propaganda'. By this token, one could very well call a public health announcement propaganda. However, like 'tyrant' it has acquired additional baggage over the years which give the term strongly negative connotations, to the point that it's become near synonymous with malicious misrepresentation, and the former usage has been all but forgotton. With that in mind, presenting a public health announcement as 'propaganda' carries that baggage and thus the term's use in that context is ill-advised.[/footnote] in that respect, the more general meaning has been almost entirely eclipsed by the additional implications that have been added to the term over the years. Yes, the word faith can be synonymous with 'trust' and is still occassionally used as such, but it remains a loaded term more closely associated with religion than general trust. And as noted priorly, in this particular context the term has a long history of being used as a weasel word to imply the same religious connotations described. We've actually seen it in this very thread with someone using the term to imply that scientific principles like evolution had much the same basis as religious ideas like creationism, and through that implying that they had equal footing. It's exactly that kind of usage, which again is all too prevalent in this context, that inspires the negative reactions in question (which have also been seen in this thread).

 

[texanarob]

To give an example of science as being potentially fallable, lets look at the idea of gravity. (I'm gonna use biblical history, because it lets me give otherwise random people names and guess their intelligence levels)

At some point, Adam/Eve must have realised everything falls from their hands towards their feet. A new concept was discovered on which they could reasonably do a lot of things.

Later, they may have stood on their heads and realised things actually fell from the air to the ground. The original idea was proven wrong, but evolved. This idea held for a very long time, and is still how many people (such as most children0 understand gravity.

At some point, someone worked out there were exceptions, such as magnetism. The theory changed again, but only to allow for weird exceptions.

Relatively recently (I'm sure someone could tell me who and when) people worked out that the ground wasn't the only thing stuff fell towards. Mass actually attracted towards itself. It was merely the assumptions that there was ground everywhere and that stuff would always fall from a reasonably small distance from it that allowed the previous assumptions to work. This meant the entire idea had to be reconsidered, despite working in every situation previously encountered, to deal with physics in space.

Other exceptions discovered along the way have disproven the idea that stuff will always fall unless it is physically supported. Hydrogeen balloons allowed people to make solids 'float' due to them being lighter than air. Further ideas that it was relative weight to air that defined speed of falling have been shattered with famous bowling ball vs feather wxperiments. Finally, aerodynamics now allow lumps of heavy metal to soar through the air.

A child reacts to the idea of an aeroplane the same way Adam would have. It appears to defy everything he ever observed, destroying a law he based his life around. Many children have seen superman and tried to jump off their sofa, believing physics to have changed somehow (others just for the craic).

And now we have an incredibly complex idea of how gravity interacts with matter, often explained using a stretchy material and heavy objects making physical slopes down which objects fall, due to the effect of Adam's understanding of gravity.

I have no doubt that in 100 years time people will look back on our ideas of scientific law and theory and split them in several catagories, Nonsense, simplistic starting point and true. And if we could go there, I reckon we would be shocked to see which ideas fall where, just as Adam would be shocked to see aircraft.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

There is a difference between what is reasonable to assume and what is possible. Science does not suggest some wild pie in the sky explanation and then say "Well you can't prove that isn't true", they look at evidence to determine the best explanation they can come up with. If a better one that fits the EVIDENCE more closely comes along, they go with that. But faith isn't even that, it's a belief in something whether or not the evidence is there, and that has no place in science.

 

[Vigormortis]

Science must make assumptions which cannot be proven. Whether these count as faith is a matter of semantics.
1: The universe exists
2: It is possible to learn things about the universe
3: Our senses are at least sometimes accurate, and relay information about the outside universe.
These can never be proven, yet are vital ot beggining science or any evidence based learning. We can never know whether what we see and observe through data is correct, and not changed by some unknown entity, or if there really is anything to observe out there, yet we must accept that evidence is a trustworthy means of determining things, which cannot be proven by evidence. As long as we are aware of these assumptions I see no problem with it.

Except that, two of those three are more philosophy based rather than purely scientific. Even in quantum mechanics, such concepts are either quantifiable or "novelties".

Science operates on assumptions, of which can be proven wrong and adapted. Faith is an "infallible" belief that something is true, no matter what evidence may arise.

I actually displayed the definitions of faith and assumption in a previous post, so I won't do so here. It would just be redundant. (and space consuming)

[edit]
Actually, glancing at a few other posts, MeChaNiZ3D essentially said what I was going to say.

There is a difference between what is reasonable to assume and what is possible. Science does not suggest some wild pie in the sky explanation and then say "Well you can't prove that isn't true", they look at evidence to determine the best explanation they can come up with. If a better one that fits the EVIDENCE more closely comes along, they go with that. But faith isn't even that, it's a belief in something whether or not the evidence is there, and that has no place in science.

Good on you, Mechanized.

 

[Dwarfman]

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?

Given that the vast majority of discoveries seem to be made by accident, that many of the truths scientists cling to are still theories and the simple fact that science is not infallible as it is OUR interpretation of how the universe works - and we all know what we're like - then absolutely, their is a huge degree of faith to it. Then again their is a huge degree of faith in anything we do. As Book from Firefly would say ' You don't need to believe in God, just believe in something' - or words to the effect.

The problem is is religion is the new taboo. And the big catch phrase for religion has always been faith. People hear you talking about faith and they'll instantly write you off as a religious nut without understanding what faith means which is a firm belief in something.

Do people out there honestly believe that scientists like Rutherford, Newton and Voltaire discovered what they did without the faith that what they were researching would come to fruition. Or that Edison and Archimedes didn't have faith in the things they invented. Or that all the great scientists and inventors history has blessed us with didn't have faith in themselves.