Science is based on faith?

[Eddie the head]

The whole discussion is solely based on people's different definition of "faith".
There seem to be people who equate faith with "religion" or "believing in things that don't exist", but it just means you have to "believe".
Do you "believe" your senses display the world as it really is? Because that's what science is based on.
Do you "believe" empirical evidence, or do you discard it in favor of some religion?

I am so tired of this. You are trying to divorcing the connotation from the denotation, then you are using the denotation to try and say other people are missing the point. Well I am here to tell you, your missing the point. The denotation of the word "faith" dose just mean believe in some context, but the connotation is religious. It's not incorrect to say what you are saying, but it's incredibly poor speech. That's what's bad about calling Science "faith" it doesn't convey the point well.

 

[irishda]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? He is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both willing and able? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither willing nor able? Then why call him God?

But this gets into the questions of philosophy. What is evil? What it evil to some is right to others. No sane person goes and says "I am going to be evil" what people do is based on what they know and what they believe to be the best thing to do. Morals are a malleable concept that isn't the same for all people.

Who is to say that what we believe is 'right' is truly that?

An organization plans to cause global strife and conflict by increasing the standard of living and improving medicine so people live longer, but will cause overpopulation and the breakdown of multiple countries social security systems causing massive unrest and destabilizing the world's economy. Is that an evil organization?

That organization is a reference to Franken Fran.

You didn't read the rest of my post did you?

 

[irishda]

God is unfalsifiable because he does not require a place to be or an existence outside our minds to be real to people.

Wrong.

If you happen to believe in a god named Thor and part of that belief is that he fights Jotun and creates thunder by tossing Mjolnir, you've made a testable claim. We can study thunder and its causes and see that there is no hammer or other malleistic source. We can do a study of humanoids and look for evidence of ice-giants within them. There's all sorts of tests-for-Thor we could create due to the nature of the claim.

As a result, Thor is a falsifiable claim.

Whether or not someone can hallucinate Thor is irrelevant to that.

Now that I've demonstrated that there exists a god-claim that is fallsifiable, I have also thus proven that god claims CAN be falsifiable. Now you can make a different god claim--or even a different claim about Thor, but that just means you're redefining Thor to be something else--it does not mean I have not falsified the Thor claim I was given. It only shows the god-claimant is arguing dishonestly.

In other words:

As there exists a God claim that can be falsified, it is therefore untrue that all god claims are unfalsifiable.

Every theory is a logical conclusion based on data connected by logic. Since it is impossible to know whether or not the data collected is incomplete, it is impossible to verify that the logic is sound. Thus, the conclusion is always suspect. How do we know the data collected on the study of thunder is able to accurately pick up a deity or evidence of one? After all, as far as the people were concerned, germs did not exist before the proper tools were there to be able to discover them. So therefore, no god-claim, and indeed no claim, is completely fallsifiable.

And secondly, the basis with which we can test these claims is also suspect. Are we using the correct language to describe a feat which we may not be able to comprehend? If you were an ancient caveman, and a martian flew down from the sky, how could you describe that? If the Bible says God created Earth in seven days, did they literally mean seven days? Or, as God would be a entirely different entity, does seven days have an entirely different meaning to God than it does to us?

 

[Seydaman]

Everything is faith, we know with 100% certainty almost nothing. But people(those with logic) place their faith in the most likely candidate (what science tells us). The whole idea of science is that it is constantly changing, improving our view of what the world is and how it works, I doubt we will ever nail down everything 100%, but we can always improve. When a scientific idea is brought up, we do not ask "How can we know if it is true?" we ask "How can we disprove it?" if there exists no way to disprove something, it is not science.

 

[Moth_Monk]

"Science is based on faith?"

Thread posted on the Internet electronically via a computer.

Painful irony.

 

[Cryo84R]

Why do we keep confusing the word "Trust" for the word "Faith"? I don't have faith that a doctor can tell me how a heart works, I trust his knowledge and experience.

I guess English just sucks as a language!

 

[GentleMad]

Wow, doesn't anyone tell the Escapist community how civilized you guy are? I mean, I look at the left on EC video and they have nearly all been arguments that are not taken in what EC said in the video and said the same old 'faith is religion and religion is bad!!!!' arguments and not adding to anything to the discussion.
Oh and...

Why do we keep confusing the word "Trust" for the word "Faith"? I don't have faith that a doctor can tell me how a heart works, I trust his knowledge and experience.

I guess English just sucks as a language!

I think the case that science is faith is not saying doctor guess their way though healthcare, because that's not based on theory and there is no alternative to how the heart works. What it is about is question like 'Where do we come from?' and 'How does the universe work?' are answered with theories (Evolution and particle physic and so on). In order for these to come up, a scientist has to take a 'leap of faith' and put forward these idea, then test the idea to see if its true. Some theories (like evolution) can't be proven (evolution take to long and we can't observe it happening) and so we say its the most likely explanation. Hope that clears thing up.

 

[Fuzzed]

Science is just crap we discover around us. There's no faith element. Unless you use that science to start predicting stuff that has yet to be discovered. People would probably argue that as "logical" faith or somethin'. Religion, on the other piece of bacon, is just faith straight from the gecko.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

if you want it funny, a little crass, and not politically correct: http://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U - tim minchin's the storm

That is possibly the most pretentious strawman I've ever seen.

It would be if I were calling people storm, in that, about halfway through he makes a pretty decent argument (for a comedian) about the difference between evidence based and faith based beliefs (5:27-6:20). This is one of the reasons I gave two different examples and prefaced one with the mention of it being crass and non-pc, and gave a link rather than an embed to relieve the focus on the element.

So yes, I am sorry if it seemed that I am likening people who believe in faith and such to an unflattering caricature of a believer from an atheist comedian, completely understandable, not intentional, thought its source would keep it in its true form.

 

[Schadrach]

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?

Ultimately, any logical system is either inherently incomplete (that is there are questions within it's domain that are not only unanswered but actually impossible to answer), rests on the assumption of some axiomatic positions (that is, things assumed to be true without proof, and thus "belief") or both.

Science rests on several axiomatic assumptions, thus it technically rests on "belief", even if not on belief in one or more deities. Aside from the axiom of the existence of one or more divine beings excluded from the rules by which the rest of the universe operates, most of the axioms behind science and religion are really pretty similar.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Science is indeed limited on our own perception of the world around us so yes you do have to take a certain faith to it. It is the reason we once thought the Earth was flat and the galaxy (universe really wasn't the definition it is today back then) revolved around the Earth. However, while most religions used all powerful beings to explain things science takes the approach of observation. While the two are similar science remains very much elastic and moldable. Granted if you went up to a physicist today and said Einstein's theory on how there is a light speed barrier you will receive quite a bit of friction. However, if you present evidence in the form of experiments, formulas that better explain Einstein's relativity theory, and other scientist can reproduce your work then science will change. Religion is not so open to change. Go up to a Catholic and say you don't believe God created Earth just for us. Comment that for nearly 4 billion years the Earth went on just fine without us, flourished even. They may very well freak out.

I prefer science because while most scientist are hard headed if you can shove proof down their throats they will usually yield to it.

 

[DracoSuave]

Every theory is a logical conclusion based on data connected by logic.

We are not discussing theories. We are discussing hypotheses. The two are not the same thing, and the difference is important. A hypothesis is a prospective explanation of a series of data that can be tested. A theory is a collection of hypotheses that have withstood scrutiny to the point where they have become accepted as explanations tantative to further refinement and understanding.

A god-claim does not qualify as a theory.

Since it is impossible to know whether or not the data collected is incomplete, it is impossible to verify that the logic is sound.

Incorrect. One does not require complete data in order to falsify a hypothesis. All one requires is a contraindicator. if you hold a hypothesis, for example, that the earth exhibits a force on all massed objects, all you must do to disprove the hypothesis is find a single mass that is not attracted to the earth.

Disproof by counterexample does not require a complete data set--however rigor must be taken to be sure that you DO have a disproof by counterexample.

Thus, the conclusion is always suspect. How do we know the data collected on the study of thunder is able to accurately pick up a deity or evidence of one?

In that specific god-claim, you look for the hammer. The god-claim stats that thunder is caused by the hurling of Mjolnir--a hammer. So, if one needs to disprove that god-claim, one does not need to look for the diety, one merely looks for the hammer.

It's the same method used to prove rainbows were not supernatural.

After all, as far as the people were concerned, germs did not exist before the proper tools were there to be able to discover them. So therefore, no god-claim, and indeed no claim, is completely fallsifiable.

Bad logic is bad.

Using an example of something that originally was not falsifiable but became falsifiable due to advancing understanding is not a rebuttal of my thesis. In fact, it fortifies my point.

I am stating that certain god claims may be falsifiable with greater understanding of the universe. You're bringing an example of something that was originally unfalsifiable but because falsifiable because of greater understanding of the universe. Germs are a bad example.

And secondly, the basis with which we can test these claims is also suspect. Are we using the correct language to describe a feat which we may not be able to comprehend? If you were an ancient caveman, and a martian flew down from the sky, how could you describe that? If the Bible says God created Earth in seven days, did they literally mean seven days? Or, as God would be a entirely different entity, does seven days have an entirely different meaning to God than it does to us?

You're resorting to special pleading.

You're looking at a class of claims--ALL god claims--and making the absurd statement that because people have disagreement on the specifics of the general god claim, that means that individual claims cannot be examined. However, that's NOT how it works.

Essentially you've boiled down the notion of god to 'Whatever anyone wants to believe', which is semanticly equivalent to 'generic ambivalent statement'.

Science cannot disprove 'generic ambivalent statement' because 'generic ambivalent statement' is nto a statement that contains truth value. It cannot be used as a premise--it contains no discriptive power.

Essentially you're saying that science cannot disprove someone who is saying nothing. No shit! But science doesn't HAVE to because that isn't what I am talking about.

Science CAN disprove SPECIFIC claims, and it is specificity that is important here.

The original Thor claim I made IS falsifiable. It's a specific belief, and it can be tested.

Now, your rebuttal 'Oh but this different Thor-claim, you can't disprove it, so you can't disprove the original' is stupid. That's logically equivalent to 'you can't prove vampire bats exist because you can't prove vampires exist.' it's inane. Completely, utterly inane.

TCan science disprove the statement 'God exists.' No. Because that statement is undefined. 'God' is undefined in that statement.

But people, believers, they DO have a definition for God, don't they? They have a concept, an idea, and individual concepts are potentially falsifiable, dependant on the individual claim. Their god-claim is no different than a claim that rainbows are an illusion created by the refraction of light through water droplets, nor is it different than a claim that the sun is a giant electrically powered rock, nor is it different than a claim that the earth is of a round-ish shape.

Every claim must be taken on their own specific merits, and claims that a diety is involved must also be taken on its SPECIFIC merits. if the SPECIFIC calim is falsifiable and then is falsified, and then the original believer changes their beliefs to suit the new evidence, that does NOT affect the falsifiability of the original claim.

That last statement is EXTREMELY important because without that... science ITSELF doesn't work--science ITSELF is dependant on a claim being falsified leading to a cahnging of belief.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I consider Occam's razor to be largely a statement of faith when you think about it... But that's neither here nor there.

It really isn't though. Occam's Razor doesn't actually make a statement on validity. What it does is codify a rule of thumb, saying that "if two hypothesis are equal in all other respects, the one that makes the least number of assumptions is to be preferred". That's not so much faith based as it is simply logical.

In what sense is that logical? Two equivalent theories implies there's no meaningful difference between them. So why would there be a preference? It's a fairly arbitrary thing to do.

In the sense that the one with the least number of assumptions runs a lower risk of any of said assumptions are wrong, and lower risk of mistakes since there's less inputs to process, I'd say.

OK, that sounds reasonable enough, but consider the counter-argument. Given multiple hypotheses that predict the same thing, there is no way of telling them apart unless they make predictions which would have different outcomes.
But if that's the case, then you can use these predictions themselves to decide which is valid, and have no need to use something so arbitrary as Occam's razor.

A further point can be demonstrated by analogy to mathematics.

It is possible to write hugely convoluted equations that can be simplified quite a bit using algebra. Does that mean the simpler form is correct, and the more complex one is not?
Further, depending on what you're doing with it, the more complicated form may actually be preferable.

A good example can be found with the parametric form of a line equation. It's certainly not the simplest, since it introduces an extra term, compared to something simpler such as the gradient/intercept form.
Both describe a line perfectly well, but the parametric equation makes it easy to do certain calculations that are challenging otherwise.

As a different (but still mathematical) example, in electrical engineering, AC circuit analysis is aided greatly by the use of complex (vector) maths.
But, you can describe a complex number such as this in multiple ways. Two common ones being rectangular or polar coordinates.
Is either of these 'wrong'? No, they both the describe the same thing, but in a different way. And multiplication is easier using polar form, while addition is easier in rectangular form.

The consequence of introducing a 'preferred' hypothesis based solely on the criterion of simplicity is the implication that the other possible descriptions of the situation are wrong, even though by definition of the starting assumptions of Occam's razor, they must predict exactly the same thing.
Given that there is no evidence at such a point to say which is 'correct', this not only throws out the possibility that the more complex hypothesis is useful in certain instances (Such as the mathematical examples given where there are multiple ways of describing the same thing which are useful in different situations), but also creates the misleading sense that there is a specific 'right' answer, even when there really isn't, because we haven't got the evidence required to separate it out from other competing explanations.

Are you deliberately ignoring that he said 'equal in all other respects' and not 'equivalent'? The meaningful difference is the amount of assumptions made. The person using the least amount of unreliable information is most likely to be correct.

How is that a meaningful or useful distinction? Two concepts are equivalent if they can be used interchangeably with no apparent consequences.

Two ideas that are 'equal in all other respects', are interchangeable except for the specific details that set them apart.
If you can test for the consequences of those details, then you have no need to 'assume' anything about which idea is correct and which isn't, because you can figure out a way to prove it.
If you can't test for anything, then you are arbitrarily claiming something to be correct with no way of proving it.

What then, would be the point of a statement such as Occam's razor? To... provide an educated guess as to what might be proven correct in the future? This still relies on the idea that there is an experimentally provable way to tell two ideas apart from each other.
Yet under that presumption, giving preferential treatment to one idea over another merely creates an unnecessary bias.
And declaring something to be correct without evidence is... Well, that should be obvious...

 

[Kuredan]

All I see are two opposing camps claiming with equal and opposite fervor that their view is the one true view and they both have something to back it up. Something I might add that the other side will dismiss because, and here's the important thing, it contradicts what they believe. Imagine, not wanting to accept something that challenges your paradigm.

The simple fact that they both cling to it so fervently should be an indication that there's probably a moderate answer somewhere in the middle and boy is that sure fire way of getting both camps to unite against you. Once you start claiming that "This is the way it has to be." rather than "This is the way I believe it to be." or "This is the way I'd like it to be.", you've lost me. One should have the intellectual honesty to either live in the uncomfortable between place of knowing you might be wrong and persisting anyway or admitting that you want to believe what you believe which would cause you to have a natural bias towards it.

 

[DracoSuave]

All I see are two opposing camps claiming with equal and opposite fervor that their view is the one true view and they both have something to back it up. Something I might add that the other side will dismiss because, and here's the important thing, it contradicts what they believe. Imagine, not wanting to accept something that challenges your paradigm.

The simple fact that they both cling to it so fervently should be an indication that there's probably a moderate answer somewhere in the middle and boy is that sure fire way of getting both camps to unite against you. One should have the intellectual honesty to either live in the uncomfortable between place of knowing you might be wrong and persisting anyway or admitting that you want to believe what you believe which would cause you to have a natural bias towards it.

Generic fence-sitting comments not backed by anything more than non-specific rhetoric is not really conducive to figuring out the truth either.

Once you start claiming that "This is the way it has to be." rather than "This is the way I believe it to be." or "This is the way I'd like it to be.", you've lost me.

This is proof that you're not even paying attention to the actual argument. You're accusing the scientific position of not being critical and open-minded. That's antithetical to the scientific process which REQUIRES skepticism and willingness to be proven incorrect. In fact, that's the POINT of the process, to make it as easy as possible to prove ideas wrong.

Being 'the voice of moderation' requires actually looking at both arguments, and coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the validity of the premises.

What you are doing here is intellectually equivalent to saying 'I DON'T CARE FIND MIDDLE GROUND' when that might not actually be the viable or honest position. For example... the middle ground is NOT reasonable in a case of Flat Earth vs Round Earth debate.

 

[Cryo84R]

Wow, doesn't anyone tell the Escapist community how civilized you guy are? I mean, I look at the left on EC video and they have nearly all been arguments that are not taken in what EC said in the video and said the same old 'faith is religion and religion is bad!!!!' arguments and not adding to anything to the discussion.
Oh and...

Why do we keep confusing the word "Trust" for the word "Faith"? I don't have faith that a doctor can tell me how a heart works, I trust his knowledge and experience.

I guess English just sucks as a language!

I think the case that science is faith is not saying doctor guess their way though healthcare, because that's not based on theory and there is no alternative to how the heart works. What it is about is question like 'Where do we come from?' and 'How does the universe work?' are answered with theories (Evolution and particle physic and so on). In order for these to come up, a scientist has to take a 'leap of faith' and put forward these idea, then test the idea to see if its true. Some theories (like evolution) can't be proven (evolution take to long and we can't observe it happening) and so we say its the most likely explanation. Hope that clears thing up.

Evolution can't be proven?


All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur.

An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003).

Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways.

Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.

The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.


(Taken from Talkorigins.)


EDIT: And yes, religion is bad.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

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).

Damn I'm so late to this thread but I just wanted to say that this is actually mostly true or at least in theory. See, I learned the secret of life in Ancient History recently and there's a generally accepted theory that all our scientific advancement came from religion AND and drugs.

Here's how it goes:
In the last 10,000 or so years humanity went from hunter gatherer to the space age but there a huge period of time for about 100,000 years where humans were hunter gatherer. The change happened in the Shaman Age when Shaman would get ball-rockingly high and go for a spirit walk. One of the effects of these drugs was that the Shamans would personify their environment. Suddenly it was "woa that tree jumped out at me!" or "those thunder clouds are threatening me". Suddenly they began to think that nature had unseen motives and wants that could be manipulated by humans to get what they want. And they were right. We know how to predict or even cause weather for example because we understand the forces that manipulate it even though we can't see the forces themselves. This caused humans to begin the agrarian age when they asked "what forces make these plants grow?"

There you have it. Drugs and religion are the fountain of all knowledge

 

[Kuredan]

Generic fence-sitting comments not backed by anything more than non-specific rhetoric is not really conducive to figuring out the truth either.

Why the use of inflammatory language? That's not really conducive to civil discourse. I don't fence-sit, I hold both to be true in different contexts. I am not undecided, I have merely decided to accept both. Even if I did fence-sit, how is "I don't know" a wrong answer? It's honest for one thing and I think that's a heck of a lot more conducive to figuring out the truth than claiming to know beforehand. I'm sorry if you think that is wrong. That fact that you'd consider both sides to be so divided as to think fence-sitting is a pejorative is an indication that you think there's a right and wrong side to the argument. I happen to not see it in such stark terms.

This is proof that you're not even paying attention to the actual argument. You're accusing the scientific position of not being critical and open-minded. That's antithetical to the scientific process which REQUIRES skepticism and willingness to be proven incorrect. In fact, that's the POINT of the process, to make it as easy as possible to prove ideas wrong.

What's with the insults? Perhaps I need to explain what I meant further. I am not questioning the skepticism of scientists; it's what they're paid to do. It's part of what drives people to become scientists in the first place. What I am saying is the scientific method itself is not questioned. You question the results, not the way the results are derived. And before I go any further I mean by that the steps taken to hypothesis, rest, retest, analyze, irrespective of variables; the method itself as a "lens for truth." I think, unfortunately, that the "scientific position" as adopted by the layman shares more characteristics of pseudo-skepticism than the "true" skepticism of a scientist, though they themselves are not not immune to it.

In the words of Richard Kluft, in an article pertaining to psychiatric research,

"I mention this because today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."

That, in a nutshell, is what I take issue to. The same can be said of those who cling heavily to the religious camp but it would be applied in a different way. They are more determined to disprove other religions or belief systems than to prove their own. They take if for a given that they are right.

Being 'the voice of moderation' requires actually looking at both arguments, and coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the validity of the premises.

What you are doing here is intellectually equivalent to saying 'I DON'T CARE FIND MIDDLE GROUND' when that might not actually be the viable or honest position. For example... the middle ground is NOT reasonable in a case of Flat Earth vs Round Earth debate.

Again, I'm sorry if don't agree with me, but don't equate agnosticism with apathy and don't call me apathetic. I care very much about my position, why else would I risk the wrath of either side? Your usage of the Flat v. Round earth argument is not the type of middle ground I am talking about. Now if you wanted to talk about how both positions were derived, that would be a worthy conversation since it would deal with scientific observation against (supposed) divine revelation. Those are two different lens for discerning truth. One was found to superior to the other. The question remaining would be "Is there ever a case that one is preferable to the other?" Science would say "Yes, it's always Science." Religion would say "Yes, it's always religion." I would say it depends on the situation.

 

[DracoSuave]

Generic fence-sitting comments not backed by anything more than non-specific rhetoric is not really conducive to figuring out the truth either.

Why the use of inflammatory language? That's not really conducive to civil discourse. I don't fence-sit, I hold both to be true in different contexts.

What contexts? In what ways are both true? When? Have you even identified what the arguments of both side are? None of this is indicated in your original statement, which WAS a copy/paste of every 'Guys, can't we all just get along' tripe that occurs whenever any sort of debate of this nature comes forward.

Your post contained no actual content, moreover your position of ignorance IS one of the sides you're claiming to be in the middle of--proving you do not understand the positions, and therefore your 'middle stance' is devoid of actual meaning.

There is NO middle ground between 'I believe in things I cannot study' and 'I do not believe in things I cannot study.' You cannot 'neither believe nor not believe', it makes absolutely no sense.

Or, if it actually does, you need to explain it.

I am not undecided, I have merely decided to accept both. Even if I did fence-sit, how is "I don't know" a wrong answer? It's honest for one thing and I think that's a heck of a lot more conducive to figuring out the truth than claiming to know beforehand. I'm sorry if you think that is wrong. That fact that you'd consider both sides to be so divided as to think fence-sitting is a pejorative is an indication that you think there's a right and wrong side to the argument. I happen to not see it in such stark terms.

You are fence-sitting however, because if your stance is 'I don't know' then you'd actually be in agreement with the scientific side, which IS 'I don't know, so let's test it, because there is no use for faith.'

There IS no middle ground here, and if there is, you have failed to identify it. You have not identified contexts in which one side is correct and the other is not. You have not even displayed any sort of cognition of either argument, nor have you even acknowledged what those arguments ARE.

This is proof that you're not even paying attention to the actual argument. You're accusing the scientific position of not being critical and open-minded. That's antithetical to the scientific process which REQUIRES skepticism and willingness to be proven incorrect. In fact, that's the POINT of the process, to make it as easy as possible to prove ideas wrong.

What's with the insults?

What insult? You need to point out where I insulted you. All I did was criticize your lack of position. That's not an insult... and the fact you think so is very telling...

Perhaps I need to explain what I meant further. I am not questioning the skepticism of scientists; it's what they're paid to do. It's part of what drives people to become scientists in the first place. What I am saying is the scientific method itself is not questioned.

It isn't?

You question the results, not the way the results are derived. And before I go any further I mean by that the steps taken to hypothesis, rest, retest, analyze, irrespective of variables; the method itself as a "lens for truth." I think, unfortunately, that the "scientific position" as adopted by the layman shares more characteristics of pseudo-skepticism than the "true" skepticism of a scientist, though they themselves are not not immune to it.

This is often because the results are filtered through other laymen to the layman. People are not properly educated in the process and why it works. The scientific method is not at fault for that--that's a result of the lack of understanding of the method.

I do agree that the method should be criticized--which is why it is criticized. But when you come down to it, the method boils down to 'Check your work, check it again, check the things you use to check your work, then hand it to someone else to check your work, check it again, then check the things you use to check your work, then check those things too.' I'm absolutely certain that if someone had a valid criticism of the method, that they'd be able to voice it--the method itself is designed to encourage criticism.

The problem is the counterargument to the scientific method is based on the notion of non-criticism... don't criticize, don't question, take things on faith. That leads to the problem that those who are in the position TO criticize the method are not, themselves, capable of criticizing anything at all.

The scientific method itself tho? It's the product of criticism itself--the history of science shows that.

In the words of Richard Kluft, in an article pertaining to psychiatric research,

"I mention this because today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."

That, in a nutshell, is what I take issue to. The same can be said of those who cling heavily to the religious camp but it would be applied in a different way. They are more determined to disprove other religions or belief systems than to prove their own. They take if for a given that they are right.

Dogmatic adherance to an opinion in the face of counterargument is unfavorable, I do agree.

But so to is the concept that criticism itself is insulting, and that disagreement is some terrible social break, and that all disagreements must be mediated and that comprimises must be found to advance. That's bullshit. Some ideas ARE wrong. Some opinions AREN'T valid. And invalid opinions SHOULD be questions, should be fought, and should be debated.

That's how you find out their invalidity.

Being 'the voice of moderation' requires actually looking at both arguments, and coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the validity of the premises.

What you are doing here is intellectually equivalent to saying 'I DON'T CARE FIND MIDDLE GROUND' when that might not actually be the viable or honest position. For example... the middle ground is NOT reasonable in a case of Flat Earth vs Round Earth debate.

Again, I'm sorry if don't agree with me, but don't equate agnosticism with apathy and don't call me apathetic. I care very much about my position, why else would I risk the wrath of either side?

You didn't present an agnostic opinion. Moreover, the scientific opinion IS the agnostic opinion.

Your usage of the Flat v. Round earth argument is not the type of middle ground I am talking about. Now if you wanted to talk about how both positions were derived, that would be a worthy conversation since it would deal with scientific observation against (supposed) divine revelation. Those are two different lens for discerning truth. One was found to superior to the other. The question remaining would be "Is there ever a case that one is preferable to the other?" Science would say "Yes, it's always Science." Religion would say "Yes, it's always religion." I would say it depends on the situation.

That's a misrepresentation of the Science position, however, and that's the point I am getting it.

The scientific position is not 'We are always right!' and that's the problem with this.

The religious position is 'We are right, because it is written' and the scientific position is 'We have an idea, let's test it out to see if it mgiht be right.' The scientific position is ALWAYS tentative to further evidence, it is malleable based on observation. It is not a dogmatic position, it is the opposite of dogma. The only axioms science follows is 'There's a universe' and 'It works to certain rules' and 'Hopefully we can figure those rules out.'

The scientific side has, inherent to its position, the admission that it is wrong, and that is why science IS the agnostic position.

The position that the current understanding science has is correct is actually NOT the scientific opinion. The agnostic position IS the scientific opinion--the opinion that the scientific understanding must be infallably correct is a strawman misunderstanding of science.

Further, the religious side does NOT have a lens of truth. It has no way of expressing that it knows its premises. It has no way of showing KNOWLEDGE. Belief, yes. But knowledge requires more than belief, it requires believing in something that is true, and that can be demonstrated to be true via the belief's argument.

Religious opinions cannot be verified to be true, so it cannot be a lens to truth--in fact make religious precepts can be shown to be untrue--and often will not change beliefs once demonstrated to be untrue.

So even the position that 'both have their place' is invalid. You cannot demonstrate a single instance where religion--any religion--has any sort of demonstrable method to approach truth. Thus religion is an invalid argument.

That said, science is not the antithesis of religion, except that questioning ideas is the antithesis of accepting ideaes without questioning.


And that comes down to the central point of the thread: Faith is the accepting of ideas without question. Science REQUIRES questioning, and thus is NOT based on faith. even the scientific method itself is not accepted on faith--if a more reliable method is found, it will replace the current method.

 

[darlarosa]

Faith
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction
\Merriam-Webster


Depending on the perspective than yes. You have to believe your approach to whatever science you are doing is correct and that requires a faith in your understanding of how the factors in your experiment or study work