Before we start, let me try to put this in front:
Believing something you have no reason to believe even in face of conflicting evidence is an act of faith.
Not believing something you have reason to believe even in face of conflicting evidence is an act of faith.
Not believing something you have no reason to believe in the first place is not an act of faith as much as it is a willing ommission of consideration.
I consider "faith" to be active, not passive, and I suspect that's where most of our differences come from.
This will come up a few times in this post.
The_Darkness said:
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?
I don't know. If it ever comes up, I'll deal with it, but right now, I see no reason to, I have a bit of an aversion for "what if" hypotheticals. I don't think much would change in my life, though. I'd likely read up some stuff and try to see where they're coming from...and then, it would depend on those specific arguments what my ultimate reaction would be.
Vegosiux said:
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.
There's something to be said for the usefulness of statements that cannot be proved or disproved, namely that they're useless because they don't serve to further our understanding in any way. Yes, they can be an interesting exercise for thought, but ultimately they are not something a scientist should be dealing with.
Our understanding is built within a certain model. We do not claim this model to be universally right, but so far it does fit our observation. We don't use it because we'd have "faith" in it, we use it because, so far, it has been a helpful tool. It goes like that with every tool. You don't use it out of "faith", you use it because it works.
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.)
Yes, you have to assume those things are true. But an assumption is not the same as "faith". And well, within our model of understanding, those things
are true, because the model was built by basically defining those things to be true. Again, not because of "faith" but because you have to start
somewhere and this happens to be where we started.
Now if something extraordinary happens to shatter the basic premises of our understanding (which has happened before), we'll adjust.
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 far, so good.
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.
I accepted that there's no 100% certainty in our model of the universe, not even (especially not) on the quantum level. But keeping on with something that has shown internal consistency up to this point and being reasonably convinced that it will keep being consistent in the future is not acting out of faith, but simply experience. YOu don't even give it a second thought.
When you were writing your response, did you have faith for each and every key you pushed was still going to be there the next time you push it - devoting a part of your thought process to "The A is still going to be there. The H is still going to be there."? Or did you simply not even pay it any mind at all - as I stated at the very start, a willing ommission of consideration?
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.
1) Observation can be passive or active. If you're just watching what's happening without any other motivation, it's passive. But if you set up an experiment and have a vested interest in the result, it's active, because there's a conscious force driving it.
3) When making a prediction, you don't say "this will happen", you say "we can be reasonably sure this will happen...and if it doesn't, we're going to have to do a lot more science". A prediction is not a foregone conclusion, it's not a factual statement of what will happen, but rather a statement of what you're expecting to happen.
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).
Thank you too. I've had a few things to consider myself. See you, I suppose. Was a nice discussion, one of the better ones.
