Science is based on faith?

[The Selkie]

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved" - Tim Minchin.

For example, you see a man sitting on a bench outside. Obviously you can't be 100% sure that it's a man or even a person. Nor can you be sure that the object he's sitting on is a bench. Would you say you had faith that there is a man on a bench outside? Probably not.

While you could argue that believing anything without absolute proof requires a degree of "faith" it's not really the meaning you would associate with the word. Faith implies a lack of evidence.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

That episode and the following response made me rather mad.

I've loved EC for pretty much all of its runtime until now.

The whole thing came off as hippie crowd-pleasing. They refuse to have any kind of stance on anything right down to James being "Agnostic".

Then, they proceed to be as pretentious as humanly possible just so they could disregard arguments.

I also really despised the tone. I know that sounds stupid, but still. The way they presented it was as if the minute amount of faith science has is somehow comparable to utterly faith enamored things like deities and religion. The way they showed heavenly clouds and shit whenever talking about the "Faith" in science.

But enough about them being idiots.

It can be said Science is based on Faith. But only to the extent that taking a step forward is based on the Faith that the ground isn't going to vanish from beneath you.

Like the hypothesis about how any advanced civilization will eventually create a simulation of the universe and that we may be just such a program. Yeah, we have to take it on faith that we aren't, but there is no physically possible way to objectively find out.

Science is about removing as much faith as possible.

 

[dvd_72]

"You have to take on faith that things which are demonstrably true are true"? Yeah, sure we could all be in the Matrix, or in the head of an autistic mental patient, or any number of other unfalsifiable pseudo-hypotheses. Thing is, with literally zero reason to think that's the case there is, well, no reason to think that's the case.

A lot of people make this epistemological mistake, that science finds out what is "true". For the most part though, the scientific process determines only what is false. Nothing in science is ever proven; by its logical underpinnings, nothing CAN be proven. Ideas can, however, be disproven, suhc as phlogeston or the Lamarckian idea evolution. In order for an idea to be scientific, there must be a potential way for that idea to be falsified. So the question of whether or not we're in the Matrix as a starting assumption is irrelevant to science because there's not any way we could ever determine whether or not we were. The assumption that science works under the conditions where science works is not a faith-based assumption, and that is the only base assumption that you need in order to accept scientific methodology as a whole.

Can we agree that observation is the primary method by which science tests, confirms and disproves hypothesese?

If so, then you should realise that the validity of our observations is dependent on our reality being truely immutable an unchanging. This cannot be proven OR disproven, and so if we intend to continue learning more and more about the universe we have to accept, on faith and without proof, that our reality is ... well as we see it. If we cannot trust our observations, then we cannot trust anything that comes from them even if it seems repeatable.

By accepting our universe as the true reality (again, on faith) science is able to do its thing second-guessing itself and have the tools it needs to do so.

As you said in your first paragraph there's no reason to think we're in the matrix, or some delusion, but there's no reason to think we're in a true reality either. It's just something we need to accept if we intend to do anything meaningful with our lives.

Obviously observation is the cornerstone of science, along with inference as another and a conservative epistemology as the foundation. If you actually hold to the idea that science is based on a faith assumption, then you believe that literally everything is based on an assumption of faith, making the statement so broad as to be meaningless; you're just defining everything into the umbrella of faith. If the heliocentric model and the god hypothesis are both faith claims for example, they're still not faith claims in the same way so using the same word to describe them renders that word meaningless. So no, I still don't buy your premise.

In the absence of evidence either way, the default or simplest supposition wins by virtue of the razor. It's not an assumption on faith, it's an educated assumption based on the idea that a more complex scenario, while it can't be disproved, requires its own more complicated explanation. The assumption that reality is real is an assumption, but to call it a faith-based assumption implies that it is an assumption made without any cogent reasoning (as in the religious context of "faith"), which is just false. There is a perfectly logical reason to assume that we're not in the Matrix: It's not evidently true. Before evolution or geosphericity were demonstrated under mountains of evidence it would be reasonable to assume they were not true; after all, the earth functionally might as well be flat for the purposes of our daily lives.

Ah, it looks like we have conflicting definitions of the word "faith". For me, faith is accepting an idea without any supporting evidence. It seems to me that the word "faith" for you is intertwined with religion, something I see no reason to do. An assumption we believe in without evidence is an assumption we have faith in, and religion doesn't ever enter into it.

Occam's razor doesn't state that the simplest explanation is the correct one, but that it is the most likely to be true. Occam's razor can be use to help decide which assumption to go with despite a lack of evidence. It does't act as evidence in itself. It doesn't give a final answer to the question, it only allows us to move on.

As for the logical reasoning for us not living in the matrix, that is such a weak argument it shouldn't have been made at all. What evidence do you have that the world we live in is reality? Because saying you observe it to be so is relying on the fact that what you're observing is reality you enter a circular argument. Us living in "reality" is also not evidently true.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I love that comic. And I'm sorry to be that guy, but science is also based upon written and oral transmission of past testimony. Scientific studies are based upon the research that has already been done, which is why we comb through journals for relevant articles.

Additionally, scientists are placing their faith that the evidence of their senses is true, and that the evidence from their measurements is correct, and that the evidence given to them by others who were using rigorous methods is correct. These are very reasonable and basic assumptions, but in order to progress you need to assume at least some of these things. And if you are assuming something, you are taking it on faith that it is true.

I want to reemphasize that these are small and extremely reasonable assumptions, and that scientists do what they can to minimize the effects of those assumptions (double checking unusual data, repeating previous experiments, etc), but they are still making assumptions and still working on faith that those assumptions are true.

On the first part, I must apologize for my lack of specificity. When I used the words "based on," I really should have said "based wholly on." Yes, new science derives from the findings of old science. But that old science can still be independently verified. What was observable fifty years ago is still observable today, and experiments can be repeated. Contrariwise, I cannot walk on water, raise the dead or part seas. I am no prophet and know of none existing today who can perform miracles. Therefore, modern religion is based wholly on past testimony, where science is not.

On the second part(and someone else who quoted me earlier made a similar mistake), you are confusing science and philosophy. They are not the same thing. You could just as easily say that scientists can only assume that god isn't fucking with them and leaving fake dinosaur bones in the ground for us to find. Science doesn't require that I constantly check to make sure that I exist as I think I exist any more than it requires that I consult the book of Acts before conducting experiments. Don't cross streams.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'd say science is very much based on faith. That is, a very lucid faith that science's principles are more than likely correct - while still leaving a margin of error.

Science is a doctrine that basically goes "I THINK I have some idea how this thing actually works. I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain I'm close to the truth. Until I'm a hundred percent sure, though, everything I put forward exists as theories and well-informed speculations.

Religious faith tends to go "I KNOW HOW THIS WORKS AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE A POOPYHEAD WHO'S WASTING OXYGEN FOR US, THE CHOSEN ONES!"

So... Yeah.

Not that scientists with faith don't exist. I'm fairly sure Jesuits push higher learning in their numbers and don't restrict topics. I've heard stories about ordained astronomers, for instance. They're just not afraid to admit that religious faith is tentative at best, and that there shouldn't be any problems with allowing science to sort of "edit" out the more ludicrous aspects of religious dogma.

There's being blind, and then there's being faithful. Anybody who seriously believes in God but has enough lucidity to acknowledge the importance of scientific research gets my vote. I'm an atheist, but I admire people who can make both approaches work on a personal level.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

The best definition of faith I seen is that faith is the assured expectation of things although present realities not beheld. So while most would say faith is "belief without proof" that would better describe blind faith, as it ignores the important aspect of faith, that is the assured expectation i.e. evidence in order to back that faith up. So science has to have faith by definition otherwise we wouldn't be here sitting with all our advancements as a species without it.

I think that the point the EC team where trying to make is that true faith is an aspect shared by both science and religion (although with different goals with that faith), however some people have seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that faith=religion and have gone on the whole "science is good, pure and the answer to everything hur! hur! faith sucks durr!" argument which sadly has ruined what could have been a nice discussion on religion in games and also the aspects of faith in science and religion.

 

[WanderingFool]

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.

That happens to be the reason why I dont talk about religion with people in person.

Anyways, I dont really agree or disagree with their thoughts about faith and science. Im more interested in seeing games that try to tackle the concept of faith like they mention.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Science is the opposite of faith because it involves checking to see if you've got it right and changing your mind if you are, in fact, wrong.

Also, faith in the context of religion or so-called spiritual matters is just narcissism.

 

[loa]

What does "faith" even mean?
Is it synonymous for "belief" or "trust"?
If so then yeah, science is based on believing observations and theories and trusting they are true.
Whatever.

I don't see the issue here or what that supposedly proves in context of religion.
They're obviously not the same just because they share 1 term.
When you play baseball, you swing something but that doesn't mean you're felling a tree.

 

[Kanyo]

Ah, it looks like we have conflicting definitions of the word "faith". For me, faith is accepting an idea without any supporting evidence. It seems to me that the word "faith" for you is intertwined with religion, something I see no reason to do. An assumption we believe in without evidence is an assumption we have faith in, and religion doesn't ever enter into it.

Occam's razor doesn't state that the simplest explanation is the correct one, but that it is the most likely to be true. Occam's razor can be use to help decide which assumption to go with despite a lack of evidence. It does't act as evidence in itself. It doesn't give a final answer to the question, it only allows us to move on.

As for the logical reasoning for us not living in the matrix, that is such a weak argument it shouldn't have been made at all. What evidence do you have that the world we live in is reality? Because saying you observe it to be so is relying on the fact that what you're observing is reality you enter a circular argument. Us living in "reality" is also not evidently true.

My point isn't that I see the word "faith" as tied with religion, I just used religion as an example, in part because the argument "science is based on faith" is where I live most commonly used to preface a religious argument; consider it heading off a potential argument while still explaining my point, which is that the word faith has several definitions which are all based heavily on context. To be faithful to your partner, to have faith in a god, or to make a leap of faith all make use of similar but meaningfully different definitions of "faith". There is no reason to make the argument that "science is faith-based" unless you're trying to legitimize the word "faith" for some other reason. Everybody knows we already make base assumptions without positive logical support in science, as we do in every other facet of our lives. The only difference is that science is a strict epistemologically-driven results-oriented tool set where most others are neither of those things.

I also never said that the razor makes something true or not, but that it's part of the reasoning why we accept that reality is real, rather than NOT take reality at face value. Hell, it's a faith claim that logic works at all, regardless of how much evidentiary support it has, because using evidence is logic and it's circular logic to defend logic with logic. So essentially, you're saying that the word faith is completely arbitrary and meaningless? I guess I can get behind that? You'll notice I said the argument "wins", not the argument is "true" by virtue of the razor. I already said that I accept that the assumption that reality is real is an assumption made without evidence, so yeah by your given definition of faith it is a faith claim, but you still haven't explained why you think that's a meaningful statement. I didn't make a circular argument, I said that there is no reason to believe that we are in the Matrix because that would require an explanation in itself, and there would be no reason to assume that we weren't in a Matrix in a Matrix and so on; you know, the complexity problem that the razor cuts out? That's why the null hypothesis wins in the absence of evidence. The line of thinking that OH WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING may be interesting to some people who haven't thought of it before, but saying that science is based on faith is saying that literally everything is based upon assumptions made on faith and renders the entire argument pointless because it ultimately tells us nothing. Discussing whether or not we're actually experiencing Reality or the Matrix or any other unfalsifiable claim is like arguing whether Zeus or Odin would win in a fight, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; science ignores those questions because science cannot answer those questions due to their unfalsifiable nature.

So I still don't see how the observation that "we make assumptions in science" or "Science can't answer this question that is designed to not be answerable by science" can have any real meaning.

 

[Eddie the head]

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.

That's the way I look at it as well.

It's all well and good saying that something has been proven via science to be correct, but the vast majority of the people believing in it haven't actually witnessed these results for themselves. So they are believing in them based upon faith.

Yeah there is a different word for that. One that lacks a religious connotation, it's called "trust." You could argue that they mean the same thing in this context, but one word has a heavy religious connotation to it and one doesn't. One is more right, and not baiting.

 

[dvd_72]

My point isn't that I see the word "faith" as tied with religion, I just used religion as an example, in part because the argument "science is based on faith" is where I live most commonly used to preface a religious argument; consider it heading off a potential argument while still explaining my point, which is that the word faith has several definitions which are all based heavily on context. To be faithful to your partner, to have faith in a god, or to make a leap of faith all make use of similar but meaningfully different definitions of "faith". There is no reason to make the argument that "science is faith-based" unless you're trying to legitimize the word "faith" for some other reason. Everybody knows we already make base assumptions without positive logical support in science, as we do in every other facet of our lives. The only difference is that science is a strict epistemologically-driven results-oriented tool set where most others are neither of those things.

I also never said that the razor makes something true or not, but that it's part of the reasoning why we accept that reality is real, rather than NOT take reality at face value. Hell, it's a faith claim that logic works at all, regardless of how much evidentiary support it has, because using evidence is logic and it's circular logic to defend logic with logic. So essentially, you're saying that the word faith is completely arbitrary and meaningless? I guess I can get behind that? You'll notice I said the argument "wins", not the argument is "true" by virtue of the razor. I already said that I accept that the assumption that reality is real is an assumption made without evidence, so yeah by your given definition of faith it is a faith claim, but you still haven't explained why you think that's a meaningful statement. I didn't make a circular argument, I said that there is no reason to believe that we are in the Matrix because that would require an explanation in itself, and there would be no reason to assume that we weren't in a Matrix in a Matrix and so on; you know, the complexity problem that the razor cuts out? That's why the null hypothesis wins in the absence of evidence. The line of thinking that OH WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING may be interesting to some people who haven't thought of it before, but saying that science is based on faith is saying that literally everything is based upon assumptions made on faith and renders the entire argument pointless because it ultimately tells us nothing. Discussing whether or not we're actually experiencing Reality or the Matrix or any other unfalsifiable claim is like arguing whether Zeus or Odin would win in a fight, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; science ignores those questions because science cannot answer those questions due to their unfalsifiable nature.

So I still don't see how the observation that "we make assumptions in science" or "Science can't answer this question that is designed to not be answerable by science" can have any real meaning.

That bold bit? That's what is meant here when (some) of us argue that science is based in faith. We (or at least I) have no intention of legitimising blind faith here because that is clearly detrimental to knowledge. Even with the various things that science takes on faith it is never blind faith in science. If something comes along to disprove the idea science relies on, then science will change in order to reflect that.

And finally, science may ignore those questions because it can't answer them, but there are things out there it cannot prove but that it needs to assume is true for it to function, that is all I'm trying to say. it is also what I attribute as the faith found in science, nothing more.

 

[Jacco]

Please don't try to speak for others with your own horrible interpretations to try and make yourself feel superior or whatever the hell your reason for trying to put words in other people's mouths is.

I'm not putting words in people's mouths. If you can't accept that you believe something without evidence then that is your problem. Whether you want to admit it or not, you have no evidence to support your belief of God's non-existence beyond lack of evidence to the contrary.

As an atheist, it isn't just 'because that's what I think'. It's because it is consistent with how I treat all other phenomena that have no evidence to support them. It's the only way to be consistent about such phenomena given that each utterly unbacked statement can have multiple contradicting ones that you would necessarily have to reject.

No. The only way to consistent way approach other such things is to say "that might be the case, but it PROBABLY isn't" or "that might be the case, and it PROBABLY is." By claiming yourself as an atheist, you are, by definition, saying you don't think God exists. And that argument is just as fallible as unequivocally saying he does.

And no, don't fucking lie and say that I claim that lack of evidence is validation of 100% certainty. As an atheist I'll say that I believe in a deity just as much as I think that my neighbor flipped a coin 3 billion times in a row and got heads. You don't get people like you going around complaining that not believing that is trying to claim a lack of evidence as 100% validation when people are smart enough not to believe it.

At no point there did I lie abut anything so just stop right there and calm yourself down.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
a·the·ist (th-st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

As I said above, by identifying yourself as such, you are stating or denying that god exists in all cases. While you have not stated such here, a common argument of atheists is that there is no evidence to validate the belief in God. In that case, lack of evidence is being used as validation of 100% certainty.

If you claim doubt without certainty, as you seem to do given by your coin example, then you are not an atheist but an agnostic. That goes back to my statement earlier of "it might be the case, but its probably not." If you can acknowledge that God MIGHT exist, however small the probability, then you become an agnostic and must accept that atheism is ultimately a system based on faith

 

[Legion]

Simply put: While science can indeed be proven. People need to lose this arrogant attitude of being intelligent, enlightened individuals just because they believe the man in the white coat rather than the man in the black clothes and the clerical collar. It's still putting faith into something you don't understand yourself. Even if it is a far more plausible explanation.

And they need to lose it... Why, exactly? Tell me why you say "even if it is a far more plausible explanation", as if it's completely irrelevant.

Because arrogance and a false sense of enlightenment are traits exhibited by the kind of people with whom I wouldn't want to associate with.

I'd much rather spend an afternoon talking with a kind and friendly religious person with whom I may disagree with on the workings of the universe than an arrogant atheist who feels the need to tell everybody who isn't as logical as them that they are a deluded moron.

We are all just humans who know practically nothing about the universe, people like to think knowing just a little more makes them superior enough to belittle others, but when it comes down to it, we are just animals. We are born, we live, we die, and we mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. So yes, I think people need to lose the arrogance and sense of superiority that some feel simply because they see the world for what it is, rather than what they'd like it to be.

As for the last sentence, you are trying to start an argument and twist my words around, just like before where you assumed that I was implying that science is as valid as religion due to people having faith in the people who teach it.

I did not say it as though it is irrelevant, I was saying that despite it being more plausible, it doesn't change the fact that you are putting faith in people who you deem to be more knowledgeable than yourself. When it comes down to it, it is hypocrisy to dismiss religion due to it being on faith when most people who believe in science are not that different.

If you want to dismiss religion, do it on the basis that a lot of it does not make any sense, not the fact that it cannot be proven.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Science is based on probabilities, albeit extremely high ones. So far, without fail, every time two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom meet, under given conditions, a single water molecule is formed. However, since those conditions can be varied infinitely, it's impossible to say that this will always be the case, for every condition. Their argument is that assumptions like this, which are the foundational base of science, while very solid in reason, are still based on faith--something that is believed especially with strong conviction. It is unquestioned whether it will happen, because, so far, it has never failed to happen. From one perspective, yes, you could easily call that faith.

Just keep in mind that they are speaking of faith devoid of religion. A profound certainty that something will happen can be faith regardless of who or what is doing it, why, or through what nomenclature. And then, of course, there's this little bit:

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.

Even if you're taking the word of a thousand people, without actually doing it yourself, you're taking their results. The moment you start to question their word, and perform it yourself, you stop acting on faith.

 

[Jacco]

I don't believe in a deity. That does not mean I think it is impossible or claim to know with absolute certainty. But I do not believe in a deity. Disbelief is not the same as saying that it is impossible.
So try again without making shit up.

So you admit that you do not BELIEVE in God/god/gods/etc. And you are correct in saying disbelieving and impossibility are not the same. However, in this case, they often come together and for the sake simplicity, I refer to them as one since most others do as well, ie "I believe God does not exist" has essentially the same meaning in this area of argument as "I know God does not exist."

You should really say what the conclusion of that is, so people reading this know whether you're just engaging in petty semantics or trying to pass off a false equivocation.

I'm attempting to make a point of showing that this argument always boils down to language semantics.

Oh, also, you're straight up wrong. Theism and atheism are in regards to what you believe, and gnosticism/agnosticism deal with what you do or don't know. What you described would be "agnostic atheist", not "agnostic".

See my reply to Dijkstra. I had a reason for doing so and was not expecting to have to distinguish them since most of the other arguments of this nature I've seen and participated in did not.

That just goes to show that the Escapist has a more intelligent user base than other places on the internet. ^_^

 

[Jonluw]

That doesn't weaken the case of those who criticize religion as being based on faith though.

Religion is not based on faith. Only certain religions care about faith, mostly Christianity. In most religions throughout history (with many existing and prominent today), participation in the religion was not based on one's faith but on one's willingness to engage in the practices of the religion. A Japanese Buddhist who goes to a temple, makes a donation, prays for something, and does it not because they have faith that any Bodhisattva will hear their prayer and assist them but because they just like doing it, this person is a completely valid Buddhist. And in that instance criticizing faith will have no impact on this particular religion, which means it's impossible to criticize religion as a whole as being based on faith.

It disturbs me that I have to continually point out that not all of religion, not even all "important" religions are Christianity-like in their emphasis on faith.

Ah, this discussion again.
I can't be bothered to debate this, so if you want to know my opinion on orthopraxy vs orthodoxy, read page 4 in this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.381277-Not-Mentally-Capable-of-Faith?page=4

Short version: I recognize that in some circumstances, for example in sociological studies, defining religion by practice rather than faith might be useful, but I also mean that in ordinary conversation the term 'religion' is not used in accordance to the definition used in that part of academia; nor should it be, based on what it will most often be used to discuss. I personally would not call the actions of the Buddhist you mention religious for example. I'd call them cultural, unless the context is such that including that particular flavour of culture under the definition of religion is convenient, as mentioned above.
So in my opinion, the burden of clarifying lies with the one that includes practices that do not involve faith/belief in their definition of the word religion.

 

[Jacco]

Faith does not search for truth. It dictates it. It does not in any way belong in the realm of science.

I don't think that's necessarily fair to say. Religion dictates truths, faith, at its core, is the believe in truths. It is important to distinguish them.

 

[Jacco]

I don't believe in a deity. That does not mean I think it is impossible or claim to know with absolute certainty. But I do not believe in a deity. Disbelief is not the same as saying that it is impossible.
So try again without making shit up.

So you admit that you do not BELIEVE in God/god/gods/etc. And you are correct in saying disbelieving and impossibility are not the same. However, in this case, they often come together and for the sake simplicity, I refer to them as one since most others do as well, ie "I believe God does not exist" has essentially the same meaning in this area of argument as "I know God does not exist."

For most practical purposes it does. It doesn't when you're trying to pass arguments off as belonging to people who say the former when it would only apply to the latter.

I'm not trying to pass off anything. Most other places, no one would distinguish them. But if you want get into the semantics here, we can do that. Going back the beginning, I will claim atheism as a system of faith in an unprovable belief. I ask you: Does a universal diety exist?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

There is not even a degree of faith involved in science.
Science is a process by which knowledge is gained from observation and evidence.
Faith is belief regardless of observation and evidence. A faith based belief is not inherently incorrect, but it is not a belief based on evidenc of its correctness, but on a personal desire for its correctness.